Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Tourism (London)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department is taking to promote tourism in London.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is also made available to the 11 regional boards, including the London tourist board.
Only last week, my right hon. Friend co-hosted the reception to launch the inaugural London arts season. This ETB/BTA-led initiative, in conjunction with several of my Department's sponsor bodies, will help to boost tourism at a traditionally slack time of year.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is not our greatest tourist asset our capital city? The people whose job it is to promote the capital and to guarantee the huge amounts of revenue that flow from tourism feel at a disadvantage because of the lack of coherence and structure that govern their ability to present London as a

city. Will the Minister look at ways to ensure that, in future, we can present the tourism potential of London strategically rather than piecemeal?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, because 54 per cent. of foreigners who visit this country come to London and tourism is responsible for more than 200,000 jobs and £4·8 billion in revenue. He is entirely right to stress the importance of tourism. I also accept that bringing all the tourism effort together is an important consideration, but it is not always appropriate to have one body to deal with everything. London First has been launched to try to improve the quality of life for Londoners and the London tourist board is primarily responsible for tourists. Those organisations meet and we certainly try to achieve the maximum co-ordination.

Mr. Jessell: As tourists come to London not for our weather but because London is one of the arts capitals of the world, with an unparalleled range of opera, ballet, concerts, museums, historic buildings and heritage, not to mention the monarchy and our royal family, are not those the things which we should continue most to promote among tourists?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right: London is the arts capital of the world nowadays. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said and, through the British Tourist Authority, the English tourist board and the London tourist board, we shall do everything possible to do what he wishes.

Mr. Cohen: Was not London so far behind in the race to host the Commonwealth games that it was humiliating? If London had won, that would have brought in a lot of tourists. That bid was put forward by a quango that had been set up by the Government, of which no one in London had ever heard. Is not it about time that the Government admitted their mistake and re-established a Londonwide authority to represent London properly?

Mr. Sproat: I think that the whole House will congratulate Manchester, including even those hon.


Members who represent London and Sheffield, which did not win. We certainly do not want to return to one body like the former Greater London council.

Competitive Sport

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage greater participation by children in competitive sport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: I am talking to a number of organisations and practitioners about ways of promoting competitive sport more widely, and will be holding a consultative seminar on this issue very shortly.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Was not the positive response from many leading sports bodies to the report produced by the Conservative Back-Bench committee on sport extremely welcome? Will my hon. Friend be having further discussions with our ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education about enhancing the opportunities for competitive sports in our schools?

Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend and all those who produced the report "Team Games and Competitive Sport in Schools". It is an extremely valuable contribution to an important debate. The Department for Education is well aware of the importance of team games and competitive sports. I hope that, together, we can produce a plan for even more team games and competitive sport in schools.

Mr. Pendry: If the Minister genuinely wants to encourage more competitive team sport in schools, had not he better start winning some battles with the Department for Education? For instance, is there to be one hour a day for physical education in the national curriculum, as the Minister advocated to sports writers last month, or is there to be the totally inadequate time of one hour a week, as advocated by Sir Ron Dearing? Is the Minister battling with the Secretary of State for Education to scrap regulation 909, which resulted in £70,000-worth of playing fields being sold off every day of last year? Unless that regulation is scrapped, few playing fields for any sports will be left. Unless the Minister's tough words are matched by strong ministerial action, his credibility in the sporting world will decline even faster, and that is saying a lot.

Mr. Sproat: I am having no battles with the Department for Education, just a series of friendly and genial conversations. I hope that, in the end, much more time will be given to physical education in schools, by which I mean not just lectures on the history of sport but team games and competitive sports. 
The point about playing fields is important. I hate to see playing fields sold off, but I understand the pressures. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since December, we have for the first time a register of all playing fields in the country. It is a good move forward, which I hope will help us with the problems that he described.

Mr. John Carlisle: After England's magnificent and comprehensive victory against the Scots on Saturday, will my hon. Friend take time to consider encouraging the playing of rugby union in schools? Will he also support the many local junior clubs that encourage and coach the

youngsters, often in the parents' spare time and on a voluntary basis? If he encourages them, may not we hope for even more magnificent victories at Twickenham in the future?

Mr. Sproat: Having seen the match, I thought that England was very lucky to win and it was a heart-breaking result. None the less, I congratulate rugby union on what it has done for those youth sports. It has made tremendous strides. All the home countries can learn from rugby union's promotion of rugby among young people.

"News At Ten"

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the ITV Association over proposals to move the timing of "News at Ten".

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke: None. The scheduling of news programmes is a matter for the ITV companies and the Independent Television Commission.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister recall the Government's stated commitment in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to the importance of national and world news? Will he now make it clear that he backs the Prime Minister in objecting to plans to move "News at Ten" to a much earlier time slot?

Mr. Brooke: The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises has latterly gone on the back burner. Following the exchanges between the ITC and Channel 3 licensees, the ITC has made it clear that "News at Ten" will continue to be broadcast at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments and am glad that he accepts that it is primarily a matter for the independent television contractors. Does he agree that, were it not for a Conservative Government, we would have neither ITV nor "Sky News", because the Labour party voted against the formation of independent television and the implementation of satellite television?

Mr. Brooke: As a Conservative, I pay close attention to history, and I share my hon. Friend's view that the Opposition occasionally suffer from amnesia about what has gone before.

Mr. Corbett: Is not it clear that ITV beat only a tactical withdrawal from its plans to move "News at Ten" to an earlier slot last year, the better to counter the livelier scheduling of Channel 4—which runs its news between 7 and 8 pm and which can therefore get its evening film on earlier—and the better to attract the audience that it needs? Is the Secretary of State simply going to let the provisions of the Broadcasting Act be tinkered with in a piecemeal way, as he did with ownership? Would not it make more sense to announce a review of the Act, to sort out the sorry mess that it is creating?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a "tactical withdrawal". The fact remains that the rescheduling of "News at Ten" would require the ITC's approval if all the regional licensees are to remain in compliance with their general licence conditions. Given that that is how the Act stands, it sounds to me as though we are better off with the Act than with what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Rugby

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football League to discuss rugby matters.

Mr. Sproat: I met representatives of the Rugby Football League on 22 November 1993 and discussed a number of issues with them. I was also pleased to attend the annual dinner of the all-party rugby league group on 13 December.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am also pleased that he did not give us a detailed report of what went on at the dinner of the all-party rugby league group.
What negotiations and discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Ministry of Defence about that Ministry's continued determination, which has lasted for 99 years, to exclude the playing of rugby league by the armed forces? Last time the matter was raised in the House, the Minister gave us a commitment that he would hold discussions and said that he hoped to produce a report which would mean that, for the first time in nearly a century, the game could be played without the interference of civil servants or senior officers in the affairs of those squaddies and others who want to play the game.

Mr. Sproat: I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence on 16 December and wrote him a letter following up the meeting. I told him that I wanted a new and fair deal for rugby league in the armed services. He gave me what I thought was an extremely positive and helpful reply. He is now conducting a review of the way in which not just rugby league but all sports are financed and dealt with in the armed services. I very much hope to have an answer on the results of that review by Easter.

Mr. Waller: That is a helpful reply. I welcome my hon. Friend's sustained efforts to reconcile the two codes of rugby—at the local level, co-operation, not conflict, is generally the rule.
Can my hon. Friend report any progress in his efforts to ensure that the stringent regulations governing safety at sports grounds do not unduly hamper rugby league clubs, given that the crowds at such games tend to be very disciplined and well behaved?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Although all sports grounds, whatever sports are played on them, need to be safe, most of the regulations that have to be observed came about as a result of the fact that soccer grounds generally have much larger and occasionally much more obstreperous crowds than do rugby league grounds, where people are well behaved and average crowds tend to be much smaller. So the rugby league grounds are paying the price of that. I am trying to find new ways to avoid financially disadvantaging rugby league as a result of what happens at soccer grounds.

National Lottery

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria he would expect to be used in deciding the location of the national lottery operation.

Mr. Brooke: The location of the national lottery operation is a matter for the applicants for the main licence

to operate the lottery to consider in making their applications to the director general. I cannot comment on the criteria that they might use in making their decision.

Mr. Tyler: Does the Secretary of State agree that the national lottery will be a success only if, as well as distributing its funds to good causes, national economic and employment objectives are met? Does he agree with the view of the Minister at the Department of Employment, who said this week that there are sound labour market reasons for locating the headquarters of the lottery in Cornwall? Does he accept the view of all the people of Cornwall, of all parties, backed by the county council which took the initiative, that this should be a case of Cornwall first?

Mr. Brooke: Some of my hon. Friends might think that the hon. Gentleman was leading with his chin by asking that question, as his party and his colleagues voted against the Bill on Second and Third Readings. Having said that, I recognise that he has joined my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to press Cornwall's cause.
I have issued directions to the director general that, consistent with his duties under section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, location must be taken into account in assessing any bids. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would have sound labour reasons for the lottery being located in a number of different places in the kingdom.

Mr. Waterson: Will not many new jobs be created by the establishment of the national lottery headquarters? When making recommendations about the relevant criteria, will my right hon. Friend be able to suggest that they entirely exclude the constituencies of Members such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who asked the question and is a member of a party which was against the idea? Also, will he consider including Eastbourne in the list of potential sites?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the contribution that the national lottery will make to the economy. To be fair to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), he avoided voting on the matter on Second and Third Readings. His is yet another of those cases to which I have referred of running with the hare and then apologising to the hounds when they catch up.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State consider carefully Merseyside's claims to be the home for the national lottery, in recognition of the high unemployment rates in the region and especially as the House had long and important debates about the effect that the lottery will have on employment in the football pools industry?

Mr. Brooke: The case that the hon. Lady raises was mentioned frequently during our debates. The Act states that it is for the director general to decide on the site, but contractors who are bidding to run the lottery will no doubt take the considerations that she mentioned into account when formulating their bids.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Besides excluding the constituencies of hon. Members who have demonstrated their opposition to the national lottery, would not it be sensible to consider areas of the country where there is a reasonable chance of finding staff trained in information technology


and which have good communication links with London? Can he think of any other criteria that I might suggest to help with Swindon's bid?

Mr. Brooke: I said in my original answer that it was for the bidders to make their decisions, but my hon. Friend is right about the scale of the opportunity. I have been criticised for making conservative forecasts of how successful the lottery will be and I am delighted that other people think that it will be still more successful.

Ms Mowlam: As the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will abdicate on the criteria for the location of the lottery and as he is clearly going to abdicate on the criteria under which the five funds that have been set up will allocate the money, will he at least assure the House that, when the announcements are made for the Millennium Commission in the near future, we will not get the sort of sleaze that we have had with other quangos and that the commission will not have a majority of Tory sympathisers?

Mr. Brooke: I found the language in the first part of the hon. Lady's question slightly curious, given the way in which the Act is drawn. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say that I am abdicating my responsibility. The Act makes it perfectly clear where the responsibility lies and that is with the director general.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who work for the national lottery will tend to be doing office jobs and that London is the part of the country where people have the greatest experience of office work? The logical place for the headquarters of the national lottery is therefore London.

Mr. Brooke: It is difficult for me to find another form of words to say that those matters are not my responsibility. The invitation to apply reflects the intent of the directions that I have issued to the director general, by drawing attention to the importance of location because of its effect on operating costs and therefore on the contributions to the national lottery distribution fund.

Departmental Efficiency

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.

Mr. Brooke: My Department has contracted out nearly all its new central services and installed a departmental-wide computer network. Those and other arrangements will support improvements in departmental efficiency.

Mr. Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps that he has taken. Will he ensure that the national lottery is run efficiently and effectively? Does not the country expect the highest standards of efficiency from its public services?

Mr. Brooke: Section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes clear the responsibilities that fall to the director general. I am confident that he will fulfil them in making the lottery a tremendous success. I share the view that my hon. Friend expressed in the second half of his question.

Mr. Callaghan: In terms of the efficiency of his Department, will the Secretary of State tell the House when

he will reply to the two submissions from the Select Committee on National Heritage—one on the BBC and one on the invasion of privacy by the press? Those reports have been with him for some considerable time. When will he report to the House?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has asked two fair questions. I hope to issue a White Paper on the press shortly, in response to the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee will recall that it asked me to delay any action on my side until it had a chance of reporting. As to the BBC, my duties flow out of a consultation paper that we issued last year. It has been helpful to have the Select Committee's observations on that as well. It might be a bit later before I reply to the report on the BBC.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Has not the time come for my right hon. Friend to exercise closer supervision over the activities of the Arts Council?

Mr. Brooke: The examination that Price Waterhouse conducted of the Arts Council last year, at my suggestion, made a number of suggestions on how the Department and the Arts Council might behave. One of the matters to which my hon. Friend may have been referring was increasing the sense of accountability of the Arts Council. The Arts Council has come forward with suggestions of ways in which that accountability might be made more public.

Film Industry

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when an announcement will be made on the Government's policy toward the British film industry.

Mr. Brooke: I shall make an announcement when conclusions have been reached on the various options that emerged from last year's consultation round with representatives of the industry. It is unlikely to be before Easter.

Ms Lynne: Would not accelerating tax relief on film production costs encourage more films to be produced in this country and thereby, in the long term, put more money into the Treasury coffers?

Mr. Brooke: That suggestion was made to us during the consultation period. The specific question is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we shall discuss with other Departments our overall response to the consultations.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the film industry that, in the disbursement of the lottery money, which I believe will be done by the Arts Council, its wishes will not be ignored?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. The guidance afforded by myself to the Arts Council includes reference to film and the need for the Arts Council not only to take film into account in its decisions about distribution but to decide how it will receive expert advice on those decisions.

Play Facilities

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual expenditure of his Department on children's play facilities.

Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council, which we fund, provides a central support service on children's play. The 1993–94 budget for that work is £300,000. In addition, the Sports Council's Trust Company has this year given a grant of £25,000 to the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the National Playing Fields Association estimates that for every £100 that his Department spends on adult leisure activities, only 3p is spent on children's play? Given that 20 per cent. of the population of this country is probably under the age of 16, he cannot agree that that is a fair distribution of money. What will he do about it?

Mr. Sproat: I was not aware of that statistic. It is interesting and I will look at it. I am currently looking at the way that the Sports Council, which has taken over the matter from the Play Board and the Play Unit, is handling children's play. The facts that the hon. Lady has put forward will be part of that consideration.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognition of the important role of the Sports Council—and, indeed, other independent organisations such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts—in funding children's play and sporting activities, will my hon. Friend repeat the advice that he recently gave the foundation? He said that it should take more cognisance of competitive sport in schools when allocating grants; a by-product of that would be its ability to give greater priority to the important regional sports facility between Kidderminster and Stourport, in my constituency.

Mr. Sproat: I do not think it appropriate to comment on the specific example given by my hon. Friend, for which I know that he is working very hard. However, I think it extremely important for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to take account of the need for young people to engage much more in team games and competitive sports.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that every pit village contains at least one miners' welfare facility? There are children's play facilities, as well as football grounds and cricket pitches. It is now being suggested, however, that under the Coal Industry Bill, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which runs those facilities, will be either taken over by the Government or split into God knows how many parts. Will the Minister give an assurance that CISWO will remain intact, whatever happens to the Bill, so that all those amenities can be retained?

Mr. Sproat: I am acutely aware of the importance of the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Last week, I went through a list of all the sports facilities attached to all the collieries, and I agree that it is an impressive list.
The details of the Coal Industry Bill are a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I have been in touch with the Minister for Energy and have emphasised the importance of facilities such as playing fields and brass bands, which have been raised before. I take the matter very seriously and will do all that I can to ensure that those facilities suffer no disadvantage.

Press Complaints Commission

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the current operation of the Press Complaints Commission.

Mr. Brooke: We welcome the further improvements in press self-regulation announced by the Press Complaints Commission on 20 January.

Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public concern about the way in which the commission currently deals with its own affairs? Will he join me in urging it to consider appointing its own voluntary ombudsman?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the current concern about the way in which the Press Complaints Commission works, as now constituted. However, I welcome the appointment of one of its lay members, Professor Pinker, as privacy commissioner. It is up to the industry to ensure that Professor Pinker is given the powers and backing that he needs to be fully effective in performing his duties and capable of commanding the confidence of Parliament and the public.

Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the commission makes changes only as a result of pressure from hon. Members or outside events? Could it not make a significant step forward if it were more willing to initiate complaints itself, and to follow up cases such as the recent Germaine Greer case, in which it appears that journalists gained access to her home without her consent and then ran inaccurate stories? Should not the commission take the initiative in such instances, rather than waiting for people to complain and thus being set up as a sort of defence counsel for the press?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would be gracious enough to include me among the Members of Parliament to whom he referred. I think, however, that all hon. Members will welcome the movement and adjustment that the commission has achieved over the past year, although some may feel that it has not gone far enough. As for the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman, such cases occur from time to time and I think that the commission will be judged according to how it deals with them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make sense for editors, publishers and proprietors to copy the BBC by publishing and making available to the public the standards by which it hopes that its staff and freelancers will abide?

Mr. Brooke: There is something in my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he will be aware that the Press Complaints Commission is itself responsible for producing a voluntary code that it devised for itself.

Tourist Sector (Deregulation)

Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many regulations affecting the hotel and catering industries in the tourist sector will be dispensed with during the current Session of Parliament.

Mr. Sproat: My Department will be formally consulting the tourism industry about the two tourism-related regulations for which it is directly responsible. In


addition, each of the seven main areas of regulation identified during my Department's inquiries as being of the greatest concern to the tourism industry, is being examined by the Departments responsible with a view to reducing the burdens they impose. It is too early to say how many regulations will be dispensed with altogether, but I am confident that we shall achieve significant deregulatory gains for the hotel and catering sector and other tourism-related businesses.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his vigorous attempts to reduce the regulations affecting the tourist industry. Does he agree that the performance of music by more than two players in pubs and restaurants should be encourged? Will he ensure that local authorities do not instigate punitive registration fees and that regulations are modified to make it easier for there to be live music on licensed premises?

Mr. Sproat: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that I will certainly do my best.

Mr. Tony Banks: In reviewing the various regulations relating to the hotel and catering industry, will the Minister make it clear that the Government do not intend to throw everything out? A number of regulations need to be maintained. We do not want a wholly deregulated industry, but one that resembles more the well-run hotel and catering industries found on the continent. Will the Minister ensure in discussions with the Minister for Transport in London that hotels do not call private minicabs rather than black cabs late at night? That is another danger which worries people in London.

Mr. Sproat: Of course we shall keep whatever regulations are sensible. Where they are stupid, we shall stop them. As to the cab problem, I shall certainly be in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to find out what he thinks is the situation.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend examine in particular all the forms that hoteliers have to complete and the records that they have to keep? Will he ensure that the industry can operate according to best practice rather than having a lot of inspectors going around checking records?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Frind makes an extremely important and sensible point. I will seek to do what he requires.

Arts Council Funding

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the loss of jobs resulting from the announced levels of Arts Council funding to clients for 1994–95.

Mr. Brooke: I have made no such estimate.

Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will be aware that arts organisations throughout the country have to decide between those whom they employ and the performances and services that they offer the public. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the sake of a small saving to the Exchequer great damage is being done to arts enterprises throughout the country? That policy short changes not only the public but the country because of the shortage of arts provision. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Brooke: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point about the small saving to the Exchequer—but my Department, like every other, is subject to the country's overall economic and financial conditions. The grant that the Arts Council will receive from my Department next year will still be 11 per cent. larger in real terms than that of five years ago.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome Opera North to London this week, with two performances of its brilliant production of "Gloriana" tonight and on Thursday? Does he agree that that demonstrates the value of supporting through the Arts Council regional opera companies such as Opera North? Will he see to it that Opera North is not disadvantaged by comparison with the Welsh National Opera and Scottish Opera, which receive extra money from the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office?

Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming Opera North to the royal opera house in my constituency. I am particularly delighted that Opera North was the first arts performance that I saw on taking my present office. My hon. Friend referred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales—my hon. Friend asked in particular about Wales—having larger budgets from which to find funding. I hope very much that we shall be able to resume the upward rise in Arts Council funding in the near future.

Brass Bands

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding Government support for brass bands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: I have received a number of letters about brass bands. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend on 3 February at columns 844–45, I see brass bands as an extremely important part of our artistic and cultural heritage.

Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend ever heard "The Flight of the Bumble Bee" or other similarly exciting tunes played by brass bands or other bands? Does he agree that brass bands and other bands are not confined to the north of England and that they are valuable in the opportunity that they offer to the public to attend concerts and to players to play in concerts? Will he do all that he can for brass bands?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly will. I have not heard "The Flight of the Bumble Bee" played by a brass band, but I look forward to it. My hon. Friend makes the extremely important point that we should not allow what we consider to be the cultural and artistic part of our heritage to be too narrow or rarefied, as occasionally happens in certain artistic circles.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Drugs (Importation)

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what involvement his Department has had with Customs and Excise and the police since 1991 in combating criminal importation of drugs.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): My Department has contributed fully to the development of the comprehensive range of measures introduced by the Government to combat drug trafficking. As Attorney-General, I also have a general responsibility when matters are properly brought to my notice in relation to the fairness and effectiveness of the prosecution process.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Attorney-General explain the extraordinary circumstances in which he agreed, along with the Solicitor-General, to meet counsel for a Mr. Charrington, who was in custody on serious drug charges on 21 December 1992? What was so different about that case, as distinct from the cases of all the other people awaiting trial, what was the involvement of the Customs and Excise and why were the charges almost immediately dropped following that meeting?

The Attorney-General: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken some interest in the matter, has not bothered to read the detailed answer that I gave on 26 January at column 246 to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I made it perfectly clear that leading counsel for the defence made an application to see me about the case because he felt that, in the special circumstances of the case, his client was not necessarily being treated as he should. I arranged for a meeting which was attended by counsel for the prosecution. The independent prosecuting authority was the Customs and Excise. The matter was discussed and explained. Customs and Excise said that it was already reconsidering certain aspects of the evidence. It went away and considered the matter further. The decision to discontinue the case against Mr. Charrington was taken entirely by the commissioners of Customs and Excise on the advice of their leading counsel without any further reference to me.

Mr. Rathbone: Irrespective of the facts of that peculiar case, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, as the Government's chief Law Officer, he pays special care and attention to the prosecutions that Customs and Excise wishes to bring and those that the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to bring and makes certain that there is no conflict of interest between those two prosecuting authorities?

The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend may realise, there is a distinction between the position of the Crown Prosecution Service and that of the Customs and Excise as an independent prosecuting authority. Under statute, I superintend the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not have the same statutory relationship with the Customs and Excise. I have an overall purview in relation to the prosecution process, but I can become involved in cases by other independent prosecuting authorities only if those cases are properly brought to my notice.

Mr. Fraser: I am sure that the Attorney-General will concede that the circumstances of that conference were extremely unusual. What was the involvement of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary in the matter? Why, as reported, did he try to suppress a report that the meeting had taken place? Did he have anything to do with the leak or any other connection with the case? Does the Attorney-General have any advice to offer about the liaison between the police, as a prosecuting authority,

and Customs and Excise? It seems extraordinary that the case should have proceeded for several months with one hand not knowing what the other hand was doing.

The Attorney-General: There are a number of different strands, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be confused about them. Liaison between Customs and Excise and the police is an operational matter for the heads of those two organisations, who doubtless take liaison matters extremely seriously; such matters are not for me. As for the specific meeting, although such meetings are not regular, they are not exceptionally unusual. From time to time, such worries about cases are properly raised with me. The one that we are discussing was such an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had no involvement in that consultation, and no involvement in the case vis-à-vis my Department. I was not aware of his constituency involvement until after the matter appeared in the press.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-General what information is required by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police in relation to guilty pleas in the magistrates court.

The Attorney-General: In cases where the defendant has indicated that he will plead guilty, the Crown Prosecution Service requires only sufficient information from the police to be satisfied that the charge is appropriate and to provide the court with the information necessary to sentence.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the arrangements made were fully discussed with the police? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the great concern felt about any danger of over-bureaucracy or over-complication of bureaucracy in such matters.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises a good point. I am aware of the concern that we should not have over-bureaucracy. My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to say that the forms used by the police in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service were designed by the police with the assistance of the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were agreed by the Crown Prosecution Service but not initiated by it. There is an important distinction between what is required in relation to guilty and not-guilty pleas. In a not-guilty case, it is necessary to take statements from all the witnesses required for the trial. In the case of a guilty plea, it is necessary to have a statement only from the victim, as well as any other statements that have already been taken.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that, wherever possible, the views of the victim should be obtained as a matter of course whenever it is intended to accept a plea of guilty to an offence lesser than the charge and whenever it is intended to drop the case?

The Attorney-General: It is important to try to involve the victim in those circumstances. The victim does not have a right to be consulted. The Crown Prosecution Service must stand back and consider the matter objectively. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I are


keen that there should be good liaison between the Crown Prosecution Service and police at headquarters level, right through to the officer on the beat and the victim so that all understand what is being done and why.

Over-lenient Sentences

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Attorney-General how many sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal as being over-lenient in 1993; and how many of these resulted in an increased sentence.

The Attorney-General: During 1993, I sought leave to refer 29 cases to the Court of Appeal, including one to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Of the 18 cases decided to date, in which leave was granted in every case, 14 have resulted in an increase of sentence.

Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those 14 cases show how important a part that power plays in ensuring that the punishment fits the crime in every case? Is he aware that a warm welcome has been given to the extension of that power to a wider category of cases? Would he care to reflect that if we had listened to the view of the Opposition on criminal justice we would never have had that power at all?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition opposed the power, but never mind: there is more joy in heaven over sinners who repent, and so on. Opposition Members also recognise that the Court of Appeal has been given a valuable power. Its objective is to seek to ensure that cases are sentenced in the range that the Court of Appeal criminal division regards as proper.

Mr. Flynn: What does the Minister think of the decision to give a penalty of community service to Roger Levitt for stealing millions of pounds from his own clients? Is his advice to fraudsters that if they want to steal they should steal big?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not proper for any Minister to make a comment on a judicial decision on sentence in any individual case. The House will be aware that the question of the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient in cases of serious and complex fraud is under active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Students (Training)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of possible economic benefits to United Kingdom industry from the provision of funds for the training of students from developing countries in United Kingdom colleges.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The main purpose of providing training under the aid programme is to benefit developing countries. I believe that schemes such as the British Chevening scholarships will also bring valuable economic benefits to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it would be wrong to be seduced by those siren voices who would argue against providing places for people from overseas countries to study at British institutions of further and higher education? Does he also agree that educational links with overseas countries more often result in enduring trade links? Will he give some indication of how many foreign students are currently studying in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with the tenor of my hon. Friend's question. There are two main schemes for bringing students here—the Foreign Office scheme and the Overseas Development Administration scheme. Combining the two, about 21,000 students in all are studying in Britain at any one time, at a cost of £160 million. That is money well spent and my hon. Friend is right that it ultimately leads to the enhancement of our trade potential.

Mr. Watson: Will the Minister comment on the position of the British Council, which is heavily involved in many of the areas—aid, trade and education—to which he has referred? May I highlight the example of the Scottish international resource project, which is proving beneficial to many overseas students? What guarantees can he give that the funding for such projects and for the other work of the British Council will be maintained in years to come?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot comment specifically on the hon. Gentleman's point about the Scottish international resource project because I do not have the facts at my fingertips, but I can tell him that, wherever possible, we expand schemes that bring people to the United Kingdom. I can also tell him that the British Council has had enhanced funding in the past year for its activities.

Spending Balance

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the balance of spending as between (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In 1992–93, multilateral aid was 44 per cent. of our total aid to developing countries.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Has not the trend increasingly moved in the direction of multilateral aid? Is there not a feeling in many parts of the House that that should be stopped and reversed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is true that over years the trend has been increasing, but it fluctuates from year to year; how significant the increase has been over the past three years, I cannot say. Much of our multilateral expenditure is by agreement with other parties—it is not entirely determined by ourselves. For that reason, we must accommodate it if we wish to remain in forums such as the United Nations, international institutions and other areas where there is multilateral spending. The most important thing is to ensure that multilateral spending is money well spent. We certainly take a great deal of trouble with the European Community to assist in that process: for example, the "Horizon 2000" declaration, which was agreed in December 1992, set out procedures to improve


the way in which EC funds were spent and we currently have five officials seconded to the Commission to try to improve its spending plans.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that the reputation of Britain's bilateral aid programme has been sullied by the decision to fund the Pergau dam project in Malaysia when his own civil servants and colleagues advised against it? Is not £234 million of British taxpayers' money being wasted in Pergau with the sole purpose of boosting the arms trade? Does the Minister agree with Sir Timothy Lankester that that was an outrageous abuse of our aid programme?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter will be fully discussed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but I must make one or two points. First, our aid programme is not, and will not be, linked to arms sales. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that our reputation is sullied, but British aid has contributed to Malaysia's rapid economic development and to the productive relationship that we have with Malaysia in many spheres of activity, including trade. Our trade today is three times what it was in 1988.

Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question is a matter for the aid and trade provision? Should it not be made clear that the aid and trade provision is a system of soft loans and has nothing to do with our basic aid programme—our bilateral aid programme—which is based on helping the poorest countries first?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right. I should add that the aid and trade provision is about 5 per cent. of our total aid programme and, under new procedures, is to be directed to help the poorest countries. I remind the House that the aid and trade provision was invented by the Labour party.

Angola

Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the delivery and distribution of aid to those most in need in Angola.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Britain's contribution of £10 million to the international humanitarian effort has been widely welcomed.

Ms Hoey: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the information coming out of Angola about the scale of the tragedy there: hundreds of thousands of people are starving and hundreds of thousands are going to starve. Does the Minister really believe that this country is doing enough, not only in terms of the amount of aid but in ensuring that it is distributed fairly? Is the co-ordination between the United Nations agencies and the voluntary agencies which

are doing such good work there ensuring that the aid is getting to the people who need it and not being diverted to the armed soldiers of UNITA?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with Angola and is an expert on this subject. She does the House a service by drawing our attention to the tragedy there, which is quite as bad as that of former Yugoslavia, or perhaps worse in terms of deaths. Since October last year, there has been better access to the provinces to deliver aid and, as a result, we are now providing £400,000 to finance two field officers to assist the in-country office of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs and to help with the distribution of aid.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the neglect and destruction that have occurred in Angola as a result of years of Marxist rule followed by civil war, would not one of the major contributions that we can make to Angola's redevelopment once the conflict has come to an end be to rebuild the infrastructure for which our country's engineering expertise is so well suited?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt that that will be so in due course, but at the moment our priority is to provide emergency assistance—food, health care and nutrition. They must be the demands of the moment.

Russia

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom and the Group of Seven leading industrial countries are providing to promote economic reform in Russia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The United Kingdom has consistently supported the process of reform. To date, about £1·2 billion of United Kingdom funds has been pledged. The G7 programme of phased support linked to progress on reform is worth more than $46 billion.

Mrs. Gillan: With the increasing reports of problems of Russian companies and organisations, one of which manifested itself in relation to Aeroflot flight SU242 when citizens' lives were put in danger by an apparent disregard for international safety rules, does the Minister agree that we should do even more to help the economic reforms and the transition to a market economy in Russia?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that without the successful transition to a market economy in Russia all the political developments that have taken place in recent years will be threatened and as naught. In our large overall programme of bilateral support to Russia, we are giving quite a lot of help through technical assistance, as Russia's biggest challenge is to acquire the necessary expertise in that area. Our present funding of about £140 million per annum will be very helpful in that direction.

Bosnia

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whether he will make a statement about the weekend's tragic events in Sarajevo and about what action Her Majesty's Government intend to recommend to Britain's partners and allies as a consequence.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The whole House will share a feeling of horror and outrage about the massacre at Sarajevo on 5 February. The Government condemn that brutal and senseless act. Over the weekend, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the response of the international community with the United States Secretary of State, with the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Spain and Canada, and with Lord Owen. My right hon. Friend is now attending a meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers in Brussels.
The events of the weekend again emphasise the vital importance of negotiations between the parties to reach a political settlement as soon as possible. The Government reiterate their full support for the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg to that end, and call on the parties to show maximum flexibility at the scheduled talks in Geneva on 10 February.
However, action over Sarajevo cannot await an overall settlement. It is essential that the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should consider immediately practical means for halting the bombardment of civilians there. The demilitarisation and international administration of Sarajevo are also being pursued by the two co-chairmen.
The Government welcome the United Nations Secretary-General's letter, asking NATO to authorise its military command to be ready to use air power on request from the United Nations. The Government support an early meeting of the North Atlantic Council to give that authority. The United Nations and NATO, taking into account military advice, will thereafter seek to achieve a ceasefire around Sarajevo. The Government remain determined that everything possible is done to ensure that that appalling conflict is brought to an end as soon as possible.

Dr. Cunningham: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the condemnation of that appalling atrocity in Sarajevo. Does not the recent history of the former Yugoslavia show that western policy about those problems is in disarray? The record is one of failure to prevent atrocities, resulting in the wanton slaughter that shocked the world this weekend. The record also, sadly, shows that resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, declarations by the Council of Ministers of the European Union and decisions of the NATO summit have never been implemented.
Those decisions and declarations are regarded by the Serbs and Croatians as empty threats, so their aggression and the carnage continue. Indecision about Britain's proposed troop withdrawal has further encouraged Serbs and Croatians to believe that their aggression would not only be ignored, but be rewarded by territorial gain. Tragically for all of us, the European Union bears the principal responsibility for that catastrophe.
What, specifically, does the Prime Minister mean when he says that he wants to see
urgent, effective and more muscular action in Bosnia"?
Will the Government immediately press for the opening of Tuzla airport, for the lifting of the siege of Sarajevo and for the proper implementation of the UN Security Council resolution defining safe areas, as set out in resolution 824 adopted in May 1993—almost one year ago? Do the Government agree that if the Serbs and Croatians do not immediately accept and allow the implementation of those decisions of the international community, they should be enforced by the use of the vastly superior air power of NATO?

Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for joining in the condemnation of what has taken place. As usual, he is longer on analyses than on solutions to the problem. We are looking for effective action—if necessary, muscular action—to protect the civilian population of Sarajevo. They have been subjected to mortar attacks from both Serbian and Bosnian forces. The UNPROFOR command, with NATO support, must apply the pressure necessary to halt the attacks. If the military commanders advise that this requires tactical air support, we shall back their judgment; that has always been our position and remains so.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Tuzla. It is, of course, essential that Tuzla airport is reopened. The NATO summit expressed readiness to support UNPROFOR in Srebrenica and in Tuzla, where it was being obstructed. NATO air power is available if needed. Pressure is being exerted on the Serbs over Tuzla airport. The United Nations is discussing plans with troop contributors in that theatre.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned air strikes. There is a distinction between strategic air strikes and tactical air strikes. Military commanders, whether in NATO, the United Nations or the United Kingdom, have consistently advised that a generalised policy of strategic air strikes would not end the war. It could make the situation worse by bringing the United Nations into the conflict and disrupting humanitarian relief. In specific situations, the tactical use of air power can help to achieve defined objectives. NATO will consider on Wednesday how that air power might be used to reinforce UNPROFOR's efforts to end the Sarajevo bombardment. We await the assessment of the military commanders, but we are fully prepared to see air power used if it will improve the situation. We want UNPROFOR to take strong action to help civilians in Sarajevo and to increase pressure on the parties to end the war.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the United Nations is involved in this conflict and that it is rapidly losing all its credibility? Will he further accept that the vacillation and the indecision have gone on for far too long? It is essential that, by the end of this week, proper steps are taken—with an ultimatum delivered with a threat of real force behind it—so that the siege of Sarajevo will be lifted and the heavy weaponry will be removed from the hills around the city. Will my right hon. Friend further accept that the United Kingdom is uniquely placed to take a lead in this? Can that lead now be taken?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in the matter, will be aware that at the NATO


summit it was the British Prime Minister who took the lead, together with Mr. Balladur, in proposing that NATO urge UNPROFOR to draw up plans for Tuzla airport. We have made it clear that NATO air power will be available. I hope that the consultations that are taking place this week will achieve the ends for which we and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) earnestly hope.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that most hon. Members commend the question that has just been asked? It is, nevertheless, true that military action is much more hazardous now than it was when we advocated it during the siege of Ozijek. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is clear that the continued indiscriminate shelling of Sarajevo is bound to reproduce horrors such as occurred on Saturday—indeed, the shelling is now almost worse in Mostar—which means that the civilised community demands that clear, specific military action to defend Sarajevo, Mostar and Tuzla, which United Nations resolutions permit us to take, should now be taken?

Mr. Goodlad: It is irresponsible of the Liberal Democrats' spokesman to play politics over the tragic situation in Bosnia. If the half-baked, half-measures advocated by the Liberal Democrats had been adopted, we would be no nearer a solution, but United Nations troops would very likely have become participants in the conflict. The ex-post facto wisdom of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is preposterous. It was even more preposterous for him to have asserted that he reflects the general wish of British troops that the United Nations mandate should be changed. He has been challenged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to substantiate that assertion. He has failed to do so—precisely because, as he knows, he does not reflect the views of our commanders.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The Bosnian conflict is littered with tragedy and atrocities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be wrong for the Government and the United Nations to change their policy because of the latest appalling tragedy in Sarajevo? Will he further confirm that we will not change those policies until we can secure the safety of our troops who are involved with the humanitarian effort and in humanitarian aid? If there is to be any change of policy by the United Nations, will he please ensure that we put our troops and humanitarian aid workers in a place of safety before we embark on an act of aggression that will make us participants in the conflict?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right to advance that argument. The commanders of UNPROFOR and of the British contingent will, of course, take full account of the need to ensure the safety of civilian aid workers and UNPROFOR troops. That is an important element. Aid is vital to Sarajevo, but it is also vital to stop the bombardment. The United Nations objective must be an effective plan to protect Sarajevo and to create a better environment for humanitarian relief work.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not it clear, even to this Government, that Saturday's butchery, in which nearly 70 people were murdered, occurred because, as with previous atrocities, the Serbian warlords believed, to a large extent, that they were secure from any form of western intervention and retaliation? Is the Minister aware

of the feeling of deep betrayal that is felt by people in Bosnia, who believe that they have been let down by the United Nations and by western Governments and are the innocent victims of aggression? Unlike what happened with the Gulf war, in which action was rightly taken, the Bosnian people are being allowed to be murdered without any intervention from the western community and international organisations.

Mr. Goodlad: The Serbian warlords have no grounds for holding the beliefs ascribed to them by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: Not much.

Mr. Goodlad: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, the international community will continue its efforts to bring an end to this tragic conflict.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been enough prevarication on air strikes in the past six months to a year? Does he further agree that it is utterly hypocritical for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to believe that the European Union is responsible, when the real reason why it is impossible to make that organisation take any decision is that, under title 5 of the Maastricht treaty, with which Labour Members agreed, it is impossible to arrive at a proper line of control and command?

Mr. Goodlad: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there has been prevarication over air strikes, which have been authorised and are being considered in the context which I described to the House. I do not find myself with any surprise at hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing concern and anger throughout all the Muslim communities in the world at the appalling lack of decision of the European Union Governments and that, more particularly, there is considerable dismay at Britain's craven conduct in these matters—this country is the leader of the "don't let's do anythings"—under a Christian Foreign Secretary and a Jewish Minister of Defence?

Mr. Goodlad: I understand the feelings in the Muslim communities throughout the world. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose question was unworthy of him, that there has been anything craven on the part of the British contribution. Our aid workers and troops in Bosnia, whom I visited, have behaved throughout with enormous courage.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is not the basic decision for the Government either to play our full part in humanitarian relief work in that tragic country or to become a party to the dispute by taking air strikes against Serb weapon positions?

Mr. Goodlad: We have never ruled out the use of tactical air strikes. Military advice is being taken at the moment, and no doubt decisions will be taken in due course.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: The Minister has spoken this afternoon of "muscular action". May I ask how and when?

Mr. Goodlad: As I have told the House, the European Council of Ministers is meeting this afternoon. NATO is taking counsel from its military advice, and announcements will be made after that process is completed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that surgical air strikes may sound grand, but not if the objective is to deter? The only way that deterrence will work will be if the United States is committed in the air and on the ground, as it was in the Gulf. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, without that commitment, surgical air strikes will only escalate the conflict and will not produce the desired result?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend points his finger at some extremely important considerations, and, of course, the deployment of ground troops has not been ruled out.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Following the tragedy at the weekend, the Minister has used the word "muscular", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain what the new muscular attitude—rather than the wind power which we have had so far—amounts to. Will the Minister, for instance, support the new UN commander if he decides to use force to ensure that our humanitarian aid gets through? Will action be taken then?

Mr. Goodlad: The House can congratulate General Rose on the start that he has made. The troops are guaranteed our full support, and the commanders have not asked for the rules of engagement to change.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone wants the negotiated settlement about which he speaks? What are the statistical chances of getting such a negotiated settlement when negotiations have failed to achieve one during the past two years, when one side in the dispute has overwhelming weapon power and when the UN has so far shown itself to be a paper tiger?

Mr. Goodlad: I do not know what the statistical prospects of a settlement are. The parties are at the negotiating table, and they have received a clear message that a Bosnian settlement should include one third of territory and access to the sea for the Muslims. The details of the territorial exchange and the arrangements for access to the sea remain the key differences. Those are matters for the parties to solve with the co-chairmen, and that can only be done at the negotiating table.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Can the Minister say exactly what was in the UNPROFOR report concerning the criminal act on Saturday? What offers of co-operation have been forthcoming from the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims towards setting up an investigating commission to see precisely what did happen?

Mr. Goodlad: It is almost certain that the shell came from Serb positions, but there is no absolute certainty about it. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's suggestions to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Accepting the Minister's statement that air strikes might relieve the pressure but could not end the war, and remembering the experience of air strikes in Vietnam and

in the Gulf war, when they were unable to find and remove military targets on the ground, and also remembering the ability, nowadays, of troops to live underground and to move at night, can he tell us whether there has been any military advice to suggest that air strikes could make a significant difference to the tragic situation in Sarajevo and in other places?

Mr. Goodlad: As always, my right hon. Friend brings great wisdom to bear on the situation. It has not hitherto been military advice that air strikes would help the situation, because of some of the considerations which my right hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. As I have said, the matter is continually being assessed by the military commanders. The intention must be to improve the situation, not to make it worse.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the caution that has been shown up to now is much wiser than may be thought to be the case from some of the comments made across the Floor of the House? If air strikes were undertaken, not only would all humanitarian aid come to an end, which could lead to far, far greater loss of life, but British and other United Nations troops could be endangered and the peacekeeping attempts made by Lord Owen and others could terminate. That could lead to the long-term involvement by Britain and other countries in a Balkan war, the outcome of which could not be foreseen. Those possibilities raise political and not just military questions.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the point made by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about the uncertainty of so-called surgical strikes, as a means of bringing to an end a war that has a deep history and is the source of great bitterness, raises grounds for considerable caution? Were the Government to be cautious on the matter, they would receive far greater support than might be apparent from some of the comments made in the House today.

Mr. Goodlad: The right hon. Gentleman, again, focuses the attention of the House on the points that he has made in this context previously. As I said earlier, we await the assessment of the military commanders as to whether air strikes would improve the situation, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, some complicated factors must be taken into account.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does not it follow, as night follows day, that if my right hon. Friend were to take the advice of the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, the United Nations would be committed as a participant in this war, which would then further escalate the United Nations' military commitment and, therefore, that of this country? Following that, it would be impossible to deliver the aid that we are currently delivering to the starving and very badly treated people of Bosnia.

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes some extremely shrewd points.

Mr. David Trimble: The weekend actrocity underlines the extent to which the Muslims in Bosnia have suffered from Serb aggression. Is not it the case, however, that the Muslim army has been trying to compensate for the losses it has suffered through Serbian aggression by driving Croats from their homeland in


central Bosnia? Can the Government impress on the Bosnian Government that such action makes it more difficult for people to help them?

Mr. Goodlad: It is inherent in a situation of civil war that events such as those described by the hon. Gentleman will take place. For that reason, our efforts will continue to be directed towards bringing that civil war to an end.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that international organisations should concentrate on the long-term strategic objectives, which they have not yet done with sufficient clarity? Does he further agree that decisions on the ground in Bosnia should be left to local commanders, whose advice will clearly be that air strikes against any of the three sides in Bosnia will render the humanitarian effort impossible and place our troops in great danger?

Mr. Goodlad: Once again, my hon. Friend points to some of the difficulties that face the military commanders in advising on air strikes.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister is rightly listening to the advice of military personnel, does he accept that the western world has a clear moral and political responsibility to deal with the issues now facing us in the Balkans which, after all, have been going on for two years? Does he therefore accept that Sarajevo is specifically under threat from the Serbs? In that context, what recommendations are his Department and the Government making to the meetings of the NATO and European Union allies? Are the Government prepared clearly to state that they accept that moral responsibility and will take action when necessary?

Mr. Goodlad: It is precisely because we take that responsibility that, since the most recent manifestations of the dispute have been apparent to us, we have been involved in seeking not only to deliver humanitarian aid to Bosnia but to bring about an end to the civil war. The situation in Bosnia requires a more robust response than hitherto by the United Nations and NATO, but its purpose must be to improve the position in Sarajevo and contribute to pressure on the parties to end the war and reach a negotiated settlement. As has been pointed out by Members on both sides of the House, the plan must take account of the importance of the relief operation and the safety of soldiers and civilians running it. This week's discussions are taking place precisely to achieve that plan.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I welcome the fact that the possibility of more muscular action to alleviate the suffering of Sarajevo is being considered, does my right hon. Friend agree that the downside of such a policy depends on how much humanitarian aid is getting through? Has he seen recent reports that Larry Hollingworth, a former British Army officer and the head of the UN High Commission for Refugees in Zenica, estimates that only 10 per cent. of humanitarian aid is getting through to central Bosnia? That figure is borne out by the World Health Organisation.

Mr. Goodlad: I have seen that report, but most reports on the amount of aid getting through give much higher estimates—a figure of 70 per cent. has been mentioned. More than 1,000 flights and most of the convoys have got through, so the figure that my hon. Friend mentions is probably not realistic.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister appreciate that western Governments are partly to blame for all the slaughter on the streets of Sarajevo? Does he agree that when former Yugoslavia was in the throes of splitting up, Germany wanted to recognise Croatia? That was confirmed by Lord Carrington at the time and since. The Government and the House were wary of the possibility of that happening. Bosnia followed because Germany twisted the British Government's arm and a quid pro quo deal was done on the two opt-outs for Maastricht, and we have finished up with this mess. If there is any guilt—there is a lot of guilt around the conflict in the Balkans—does the Minister agree that the Government's hands are not clean?

Mr. Goodlad: Not for the first time, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's contribution—in this case, in the form of a history lesson of his usual inaccuracy—takes the situation no further forward.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that when he spells out the political aims—in the short term, humanitarian; in the long term, getting a settlement—he will enjoy the support of all who judge their politics by the week, not by the day?

Mr. Goodlad: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's sensible remarks.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister agree that the west does have a policy towards Bosnia—that it does not stand neutrally by? Will he remind the House that the two pillars of that policy are, first, waiting for the three sides in the combat to fight themselves to a standstill; and, secondly, denying the legitimate Government of Bosnia the right and the means to defend their people and their capital?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the efforts of this Government and of the international community to assist the parties to reach an agreement at the table. They are at the table; that is where an agreement must be reached. The hon. Gentleman should face up to that.
The majority of the European Union countries, the co-chairmen, and the United Nations agencies are all opposed to lifting the embargo. We have never ruled that out, if all else fails, but we believe that it would do much more harm than good in Bosnia. It would escalate the fighting and seriously jeopardise the relief effort. It could also draw others in and lead to a widening of the conflict. I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. I therefore suggest that he ceases suggesting it.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if bombing raids are undertaken under the UN flag, the neutral, peacekeeping role of the United Nations will be wholly undermined and, in future, people will view the UN in a wholly different light? It will no longer be seen as an agency facilitating the bringing of aid to the people who need it.

Mr. Goodlad: I note my hon. Friend's view. It is a consideration which must be borne in mind.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the Government are unwilling to lift the Bosnian arms embargo—I think that there is a strong case for lifting it—what is their view of extending sanctions


against Croatia and providing financial assistance to the countries that are bearing the greatest burden in respect of the enforcement of the sanctions?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that getting an agreement on sanctions against Croatia would have implications, for instance, for the position of our troops and of the United Nations relief workers in Split and on the road up to Vitez. So it is not entirely a straightforward matter.

Madam Speaker: We must now move on. Unfortunately, we shall no doubt return to this subject again.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you been approached by the Minister for Transport in London asking to make a statement about today's announcement by Network SouthEast that it intends to close London's oldest railway terminus, Fenchurch Street station, for seven months from the end of July? You will appreciate that that will have an enormous impact on thousands of commuters from Essex and on the people of east London, and that there will be, as a result, additional strain on the underground and more traffic congestion in Essex and east London. I should be horrified to learn that the Minister did not intend to make an early statement on the consequences of that announcement.

Dr. Robert Spink: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If you ask the Minister to come and make a statement, will you ask him to make it clear that the closure is to take place in order to implement a £83 million resignalling scheme?

Madam Speaker: There is no point in putting arguments to me. Members should put points of order to me concerning our Standing Orders or breaches of our practice—they do not arise in this case.
To answer the orginal question: no, the Minister has not told me that he wants to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have in the past been harsh with the Government about their press releases and press conferences. I believe that the House has been further slighted today. Although we have had a statement on the serious matter of the atrocity in Sarajevo, each week in Britain 35 times the number of those killed in that atrocity die as a result of smoking.
Today, instead of a statement to the House, there was a press conference on the Government's policy on tobacco advertising. In my constituency this weekend, one tobacco company revived an advertisement which it admits has an appeal to children.
We cannot trust the tobacco industry on this matter and when the Government make statements on such serious matters, the House should be given the chance to give them full scrutiny.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that is not a point of order.
If I might correct his original statement—the Minister did not make a statement. It was a private notice question, which I thought it necessary for the House to debate because of the seriousness of the situation.

Scottish Democracy

Mr. John McAllion: I beg to move,
That this House notes the undemocratic influence and power of transnational and multinational companies in the economic life of Scotland and the deliberate erosion of the rights of Scottish workers by the imposition of legal shackles on trade unions and on their ability to defend workers' living standards by industrial action and collective strength; further notes the weakening of democratic life in Scotland by the centralisation of power and decision-making in unelected quangos, such as the Scottish Enterprise network of companies, Scottish Homes and NHS trusts; condemns the dismantling of local government democracy proposed in the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill currently before the House; censures the Government for the continuing denial of a directly-elected Scottish Parliament, for which huge majorities of Scottish electors have voted in successive elections; recognises that the future of Scottish democracy depends upon giving effect to the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide for themselves how and by whom they are governed; and therefore calls for the holding of a multi-option referendum in which people living in Scotland can decide democratically the form of government best suited to their needs.
I welcome at least four of Scotland's five Tory Back-Bench Members to the debate and I am delighted that they are taking such an interest in the future of Scottish democracy. If the debate serves no other purpose than to instruct the Scottish Tories on the Conservative Benches, it will have been very useful.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I find the hon. Gentleman's words puzzling. Scottish Tory Members have a very good record of attending Scottish Grand Committees and the like. I do not understand the point that he is trying to make. Perhaps he could clarify the matter.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member would have done better to wait to hear what I was going to say before making that intervention. If he is more patient and allows me to develop even one line of my argument, he might get on better in this debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: We seem to have evidence that Conservative Members are organising a filibuster before I can even start the debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of Scottish Conservative Members present. Perhaps he would care to look behind him and along the Opposition Benches and note the number of hon. Members supporting him.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard me welcoming the large presence of Scottish Tory Back-Benchers. I am delighted to see them here and I hope that they will listen attentively as they may learn something, which may not merely be in their interests, but will be of benefit to their constituents for whom I am much more concerned.
For the third time, may I begin by saying that the debate focuses on two related questions. The first is what has become known in Scotland as the national question—the right of Scotland to self-determination and self-government. The second question is that of democracy and the idea that in a nation—no one in the House can deny that

Scotland is a nation—the people must not merely have their say, but have their way. Those two questions are completely inseparable. In the words of the song,
You can't have one without the other.
The reality to date is that Scotland does not have self-government and cannot be described as a democracy. I do not say that merely through personal convictions because such convictions are not always in touch with reality, as membership of the House should prove to any hon. Member. I say so because the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly—by three to one—in a democratic election to assert their sovereignty and to set up their own parliament in Scotland. The fact that they are still being denied that parliament nearly two years on by a Government for whom they did not vote makes a mockery of the Government's claim to be democratic. As the Government are sustained in office by this House, it also makes a mockery of its claim to be democratic. Indeed, it makes a mockery of its claim to be the mother of western democracies.
I therefore make no apology for raising the question of Scottish democracy in this debate, although I know that many people, including many Scots, will be deeply suspicious of the nationalist side of the debate. After a weekend when we witnessed the worst excesses of nationalism—when taken to its ethnic extremes—in Sarajevo, I can understand why people might think that way. They are right to feel a general and deep unease about those who beat the nationalist drum and who, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), think with their blood.
We are learning to our great cost in Europe today just how evil extreme nationalism can be, not only in the nationalist wars in Yugoslavia, but the resurgent nationalism in Germany, which is reviving racism and even nazism there, as well as the election in this country of an extreme British nationalist, against a background of rising racist attacks on Asian minorities in our cities, often by people who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and claim to be British nationalists. In Scotland, there is the disturbing emergence of Scotland Watch and Settler Watch. It does not matter whether they do it consciously or otherwise; they are stoking the fires of anti-English sentiment and resentment in our country.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that there can be no toleration of the kind of nationalism that defines us by emphasising the difference between us and them. There should be no tolerance in the House for those who attempt to define us in Scotland by emphasising the difference between us and English Members who represent other constituencies. If I refer to Scotland, the Scottish nation or Scottish people, I am simply referring to those who have chosen to settle and live in Scotland, irrespective of their ethnic, religious or national background.
As a direct descendant of immigrants to Scotland from Ireland in the previous century, I recognise more than most that Scottish culture is not threatened in any sense by immigration from outside. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. It is greatly enriched and strengthened by immigrants from other countries. The Scottish author, William McIlvanney, never said a truer word when he said that the Scots are a mongrel people and all the better for it.
Long may we continue to be a mongrel people, because our mongrel nature is one of our great national strengths. Having said that, we are none the less a nation. The right



hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) described Scotland as one of the oldest historic nations in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is not only one of the most experienced, but one of the wisest Members of the House. His words should be listened to.
We should never lose sight, especially in the Opposition, of the positive side of our nationalism and that of other countries. For example, few socialists would quarrel with the aspiration of the Palestinian people to national self-determination. Even fewer did not or would not support the nationalist struggles in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua and elsewhere in the third world against the domination by American imperialism. Few hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would not accept the legitimacy of the nationalist goal of a united Ireland, so long as it is pursued by democratic means and is brought about by the democratic consent of the people north and south in Ireland.
The point that I am trying to make is that nationalism can be, and often is, a progressive and liberating force in the modern world. I believe that Scottish nationalism is and can be such a force if it is properly channelled. Indeed, for most of this century, the cause of Scottish nationalism has been the cause of the Scottish Labour movement. Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party, was a lifelong advocate of Scottish home rule. John McLean, who, perhaps, was Scotland's foremost revolutionary socialist, campaigned all his life for what he called the Scottish socialist workers' republic. Red Clydeside's Jimmy Maxton fought for what he described as the Scottish socialist commonwealth.
In the general election of 1918, the Labour party in Scotland drew up its election manifesto, which had only three distinctively Scottish commitments. The first was the prohibition of alcohol. The second was proportional representation. The third was a Scottish parliament. It is interesting to note that, more than 75 years on, some of us are still campaigning for at least two of those three commitments.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Which two?

Mr. McAllion: It certainly is not the prohibition of alcohol. I speak as the secretary of the all-party Scotch whisky group when I say that.
Although Labour subsequently dropped its commitment to Scottish home rule in the 1950s and 1960s, it eventually returned to it, placing it at the very heart of its "Agenda for Scotland" through our support for a claim of right for Scotland and for the Scottish Convention scheme for a Scottish parliament. Opposition Members do not hesitate to proclaim Scotland's right to self-determination and to home rule and its own parliament. These are basic democratic demands, supported by a minimum of three out of four Scottish voters. I believe that the potential exists for a common agenda for three of Scotland's four major constitutional parties; I hope that, by the end of the debate, Conservative Members will have been convinced as well.
There is plenty to form the basis of a democratic critique of Scottish government: God knows enough is wrong with it nowadays. The current housing crisis, for instance, is related to the lack of democracy in Scotland. Homelessness is now at record levels, having increased by a staggering 145 per cent. in the 1980s. According to reports in this

morning's Scottish press, in just four areas some 8,500 women are not only homeless but hidden out of sight, not recognised as homeless. God knows what the national figure is.
The first national housing condition survey, completed in 1992, revealed that no fewer than 423,000 Scottish dwellings were affected by damp, severe condensation, mould or, in some cases, a combination of all three. We all know areas in our constituencies which are euphemistically described as "areas of low demand". Housing in such areas consists of damp-ridden boxes and unemployment is at 40, 50 or even 60 per cent; crime and vandalism are rife; the streets are not safe for mothers to walk or children to play in; and drug abuse is common, with hedges and stairwells littered with discarded syringes. Those areas are little better than hellholes, but people cannot escape from them: they have no alternative accommodation because of the housing crisis.
That is a national disgrace, but we have not the democratic means to do anything about it. Not so long ago, locally elected councils were responsible for Scotland's housing. Those councils were accountable to their electorate; if local people were not satisfied with their performance, they could vote them out at regular elections. Now, every local housing scene is dominated by the quango Scottish Homes, whose financial muscle cannot be matched by individual councils. In 1993–94, Scottish Homes has a massive £372 million to invest in housing; with resources on such a scale, it will call the shots. Without an agreement with Scottish Homes to bring part of that £372 million into its area, no council can really be in the housing business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some 42 strategic agreements have been made with local authorities and that two more are about to be made? In the vast majority of cases—if not all—local authorities have nomination rights in relation to Scottish Homes housing.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister should have been patient and waited until I had finished. I was pointing out that councils were not in the housing business unless they had secured such agreements.
Locally elected councils had to negotiate their agreements with Scottish Homes and in those negotiations all the muscle, power and influence were on one side. Councils are now being forced to submit to a housing agenda that is increasingly being set by the unelected Scottish Homes agency—an agenda whose priority is more home ownership, tenure change and encouragement of the private sector at the expense of the public sector. That agenda largely ignores those who are trapped in the worst housing, who have the fewest private resources and who are least able to look after themselves. That has arisen because housing in Scotland is dominated by non-elected quangos such as Scottish Homes at the expense of the input of elected local authorities, which used to be the main players on the housing scene before Scottish Homes.
That is true also of the Scottish Enterprise network, which has brought into being a whole new family of quangos in the form of local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. Their influence on economic development, training, business support and development grants completely dwarfs local council planning and


economic development departments. In my own area, Scottish Enterprise Tayside has an annual budget of about £25 million to spend on local economic development, compared with a combined budget for Tayside regional council's planning and economic development departments of less than £4 million.
To whom are Scottish Enterprise and other agencies accountable? Certainly not to the people of Tayside, local councils or Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. They are accountable only to the Secretary of State for Scotland—and that must and does lead to abuses. In the past few weeks in my local enterprise company, two senior members were forced to resign because of a conflict of interest between their role as private business men and as heads of what is essentially a public agency. That situation cannot be tolerated and it should be snuffed out as soon as possible.
The same argument can be made in respect of national health service trusts, the new water boards and the host of new quangos that have come into existence under the present leadership of the Conservative party in Scotland. They are a law unto themselves and to their master—the Secretary of State for Scotland. Little wonder that he is prepared to defend quangos—as he did earlier today. They are in effect his own flesh and blood. He forms quangos, packs their membership with Conservative party supporters and sets their agendas—and the quangos do his bidding. The Secretary of State and the quangos are running Scotland without the democratic consent of the Scottish people. Although the people of Scotland fund those quangos, they have no say in them and are treated with contempt.
Many other aspects of Scottish life are equally intolerable.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: To emphasise the rottenness of quango appointments I should point out the appointment to the chairmanship of Inverclyde Royal hospital trust of a local employer who pays among the lowest wages in the whole Inverclyde area. Surely that augurs badly for the people who give their best service to patients of the Inverclyde Royal hospital group.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and that is not an isolated example. The Secretary of State for Scotland recently visited Dundee, but not in his ministerial capacity. In fact, he did not even advise my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that he was to visit the constituency. The right hon. Gentleman did so in his role as a member of the Conservative party, to raise funds for his party at a secret dinner held at the Invercastle hotel in Dundee—to which was invited the chairman of the Dundee NHS trust, as a Conservative party supporter, together with the chairman-designate of Scottish Enterprise Tayside.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Sleaze.

Mr. McAllion: That is exactly right. We are concerned with the country being run democratically and it is not democratic for Scotland to be run by people appointed purely on the basis that they give money to the Conservative party—which was roundly defeated in the last local and general elections.
In the past month, we have seen how Westminster-style democracy deals with Scottish affairs. A Government who

had been defeated in the polls in Scotland introduced a Bill on local government which relates exclusively to Scotland and the people who live there. Members of Parliament who were elected to represent Scottish interests voted overwhelmingly against that Bill. The House simply shrugged off what Scotland thinks about Scottish legislation and voted to give the Bill a Second Reading. Indeed, it ensured that in the Committee stage there would be a built-in Government majority, against the wishes of the Scottish people.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may have been in the House on 18 November last year when the leader of the Labour party made a complaint about English Conservatives being put on to the Committee which considered that Bill. He was certainly in the House last Tuesday when the Scottish spokesperson of the Labour party defended the right of English Tories to sit on the Committee. Which leader does the hon. Gentleman follow in that argument?

Mr. McAllion: This is a serious debate. It is unfortunate that it has to be dragged down into the gutter by the interventions of the hon. Gentleman. I am making a serious speech about the future of democracy. If the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise the national interest when it stares him in the face, he would do better renaming his party. It certainly does not act in Scotland's national interest.

Mr. Bill Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, for one, do not doubt the integrity of his view. I do not agree with it, as he knows, but I do not doubt his integrity. Will he clarify an important point of principle and detail? If a future Labour Government did not have a majority of Members in England, would it be right and proper for that Government to pass legislation affecting England which was opposed by the majority?

Mr. McAllion: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Labour is committed to a radical rehaul of the constitutional set-up in the United Kingdom. The start of that will be the establishment of a Scottish parliament with direct responsibility for Scottish affairs. Inevitably, the establishment of that Scottish parliament must change the very nature of this House. It is only a matter of time until we have a Welsh parliament and either regional assemblies or an English parliament—as the English people might decide under a federal constitution for the United Kingdom. That is the future and the way forward for the House. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that it is the way forward for everyone in this country.
In the handling of the local government Bill by the Westminster Parliament we saw how Westminster-style democracy turns a minority view in Scotland into Government diktat. We saw it discount and disable the views of the democratic majority in Scotland. Yet we are asked to accept that that deeply undemocratic process is in our best interests and represents, in the Government's words, "A Partnership for Good".
Conservative Members argue that theirs is the democratic way while, at the same time, arguing that the democratic views of the Scottish people ultimately do not count in Scottish legislation. They argue that the role of Scotland in the partnership must always be defined for us by a bigger partner. They argue that democracy in Scotland means being governed by those whom we did not elect.
When they make those arguments, they stand on the verge of George Orwell's nightmare world of doublethink. Conservative Members are asked to hold two contradictory views simultaneously. If Conservative Members are not worried about the internal contradictions of their claims to be democratic in a Scottish sense, they should be. Everyone else is beginning to recognise just how unsustainable is the Tory position on Scottish democracy.
I am often struck by the religious fervour with which defenders of the current Union argue their case. It is almost as if Tories believe that history and God are on their side. That came across clearly in the most recent Government White Paper "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good". In the introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister speaks about his faith in a Union which has lasted almost 300 years. The Secretary of State for Scotland waxes eloquent about the joys of a single market which has transcended almost three centuries.
The White Paper is almost awestruck when it speaks about the approaching 400th anniversary of the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland. There is about the document an air of historical inevitability—almost of destiny. It is almost as if 1707 is as important to Scottish Unionists as 1690 is to Ulster Unionists. Yet nothing in life is inevitable. The only constant factor in history is change—states come and go and unions come and go. In 1984, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was one of two world super-powers that bestrode the globe; it no longer exists.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I hope to develop later if I am able to make my speech. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Union has survived for 300 years due to its ability to change. It is a dynamic force; the Union of 1994 is not the same one as that of 1707. It has changed to meet changing circumstances and will continue to do so. That is why it lasts.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has already admitted the case for change in the Union that exists in Scotland. The significant aspect of the Conservative party's attitude to the Union over most of the past 300 years has been its refusal to countenance any substantial changes in the Union. The hon. Gentleman is not guilty of that—I am pleased that he has joined us in our calls for changes to the existing Union and no longer tries to defend the Unionist status quo, as his hon. Friends do.
It is important for Conservative Members to understand that unions come and go. Not long ago, Yugoslavia was a powerful unitary state. Now, it has descended into the nationalists' nightmare in Bosnia, about which we are all concerned. As old unions have gone, new ones have come into existence. The European Union was designed by the Maastricht treaty and came into existence this year. In the spring of this year, the new democratic and non-racist South African Union will come into force. The lesson to be learnt from such developments is that nothing is permanent or sacrosanct about unions, including the United Kingdom.
The fact that the United Kingdom has existed for nearly 300 years is no argument or reason for the Union to continue. Recent history suggests that, as we approach the end of the 20th century, those political unions that are unsustainable are multinational, but based on a unitary

state that makes no allowance for that multinational dimension. Such unions are highly centralised and authoritarian, without local autonomy. Those unions are essentially undemocratic, where words such as "subsidiarity" and "decentralisation" are regarded as dirty. The United Kingdom has become like those unions under successive Tory Governments since 1979.
If the Union is in danger today, it is because of the activities, not of Opposition Members, but of Conservative Members. Those who would defend the Union argue that such arguments are merely constitutional points and that, ultimately, there is an economic case for defending the existing Union. They say that the Scottish economy is inextricably linked to the United Kingdom economy and it would be impossible to change that. Such arguments are essentially political. They try to underscore the importance of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom, and part of a much larger and more powerful economy, but they merely state the obvious.
Those who advance such arguments might as well say that the Scottish economy is inextricably linked to the European or global economy. Economic interdependence, not independence, is the watchword at the end of the 20th century. What happens in the rest of this island, the rest of the continent and the rest of the world matters greatly and has a powerful effect on the people of Scotland.
Scotland cannot step outside history and live in splendid tartan isolation, although some hon. Members want to see that happen. It needs to belong to a range of multinational entities and to a radically reformed, federal, decentralised and democratic United Kingdom. Scotland should belong to a different sort of European Union, which is genuinely democratic and has at its heart the interests of the peoples of Europe, not multinational companies. Scotland should belong to a United Nations that is an effective force for peace, not merely an observer of wars, as it has become on too many occasions.
Scottish sovereignty is not something which Scotland can keep exclusively to itself. We need to pool our sovereignty with other nations where it is in our common interest to do so. However, the decision to pool that sovereignty must be a Scottish decision. We must decide how much of our sovereignty we are prepared to pool and decide with which other countries we wish to place that sovereignty and how much we shall keep to ourselves. The present Union is unacceptable because we are not allowed to make that decision. We are denied the opportunity to decide how much sovereignty we share with the other nations of the United Kingdom. That is why the Union is profoundly undemocratic and why it is ultimately doomed until it learns to transform itself into the decentralised, democratic and reformed Union to which I have referred and which the Labour party intends to implement after the next election. The debate is a matter of the utmost importance to the people who live in Scotland for those reasons and also because of the questions that it asks about the democratic credentials of the Westminster parliamentary system. It is not just a dry, constitutional matter.
An article appeared in the New Statesman 18 months to two years ago. It was about life on the battle front—the derelict housing schemes on the edge of Glasgow—and described the life of a man who was separated from his wife. It said:
last night's meal was potatoes mashed with half an onion, and a tin of peas. In the fridge, there is a can of lager and some long-life milk … He can afford to heat only one room in the flat,


so the bedroom remains unused. He sleeps on the sofa under a foam duvet, his coat serving as a pillow. In any case, he sleeps very little … The TV plays all night; at five in the morning, he falls asleep in front of women's golf or motorcycle racing in Florida sunshine. He is too demoralised even to get undressed. There is no hot water: a splash of cold tap water in a bathroom where the breath hangs in a mushroom of vapour.
Far too many of our countrymen are forced to live in such conditions in this day and age. That is partly to do with global and economic issues which are beyond Scotland's control, but it is partly because Scotland does not have the democratic means of changing those conditions. We live in a country which is rich in resources and which has enough wealth to ensure that none of our citizens has to live in such conditions.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain how that person managed to watch golf from Florida at 5 o'clock in the morning? Would not that mean that he had a satellite dish? He obviously had a television set. How many such things did one have in the average household of some years ago?

Mr. McAllion: That is not the point. The hon. Gentleman may have satellite television, but I have not and I can watch golf from Florida at 5 o'clock in the morning if I choose to do so. The general description of the person living in that derelict scheme should have caused the hon. Gentleman concern and he should have been worried that some of his fellow citizens are living in such conditions. Something should be done about it by the people who represent Scotland in the House.

Dr. Godman: Before my hon. Friend ends his fine speech, may I point out that in speaking as an honest apologist for the Union, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kinoch) is part of a long tradition? At the time of the Union, when Daniel Defoe was acting as a secret agent for the English Government, he said that it was a marriage of convenience, not of the heart. Conservative Members are part of that tradition.

Mr. McAllion: That is a good point. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is certainly not a secret agent, but an open agent of the party which governs in Scotland. People do not have to live in the conditions that I have described in this modern age in a wealthy country such as ours. Part of the reason for those conditions is that we have lost the democratic means by which we can do something about them. Restoring the democratic means to the Scottish people is and should be the first priority of every Member who represents a Scottish constituency.
I refer hon. Members to the last few lines of the motion, which recognises that
the future of Scottish democracy depends upon giving effect to the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide for themselves how and by whom they are governed; and therefore calls for the holding of a multi-option referendum in which the people living in Scotland can decide democratically the form of government best suited to their needs.
Everyone in Scotland should unite behind that theme. If we are genuine democrats, we have nothing to fear from the democratic decision of the Scottish people. Those who run away from that decision are those who fear the judgment of the Scottish people at the ballot box.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I are in complete agreement about one matter—we do not support the prohibition of alcohol. Having said that, I must now say where and why I disagree with him on other issues. I have always made it clear to him that I do not doubt the integrity with which he holds his views, but I believe sincerely that were his views to be examined critically and positively by the Scottish people they would be rejected. I hope to be able to tell him why.
First, the hon. Gentleman talked about the Scots and, to use his words, the people who live in Scotland, from wherever they came. As he must know, with his name and background, his family came from one of the other islands off the coast of Europe. I speak as one whose family, as far as one can trace, has always lived in Scotland. In fact, I think that I am the first member of my family to have married a non-Scot—my wife is English, but that does not mean that her view of the well-being of Scotland is any less honest than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I am also married to an English woman and she, like me, is a citizen of Scotland and entitled to participate fully in Scottish democracy.

Mr. Walker: I can say that she participates with credit and distinction.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was saying that the Scots—the people who live in Scotland—are not properly or adequately represented in this unitary Parliament. He was referring to the Scots who live north of the border. Less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live in Scotland—no one can deny that; it is a statement of fact. Eighty-three per cent. of the people who live in these islands live in England. How do the Scots in Scotland regard their representation in this place?
The Scots form less than 9 per cent. of the population, but constitute more than 12 per cent. of the total number of Members of Parliament. In all modern Cabinets—certainly those in the post-war years—the Scots have always enjoyed about 20 per cent. or more of Cabinet posts. In the present Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, who is in charge of English legal matters and law, is a Scot. I wonder what would happen if we were to have an Englishman appointed as Lord Advocate—I can just see the reaction in Scotland. However, we have a distinguished Scot, the Lord Chancellor, in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Transport is a native Scot, as are the Secretary of State for Defence and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is here today. In other words, four of the 22 members of the Cabinet are Scots and, until recently, there were five Scots. As for Labour, if by some misfortune we were to have a Labour Government after the next election, there is no question but that the Scots would hold more than 20 per cent. of the posts.
By my reckoning, we have more hon. Members representing Scotland than we should have on a percentage basis of the population and, despite constituting only 9 per cent. of the population, the Scots have more than 9 per cent. of non-Cabinet positions of all levels.

Mr. Mike Watson: The hon. Gentleman clearly received a pocket calculator as a Christmas present and has only just discovered how to use


it. In view of his percentage calculations, would he like to comment on the fact that, at the previous election, his party received about 25 per cent. of the vote and took 16 per cent. of the seats but 100 per cent. of the power? What lesson can we learn from that?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend say that—he is my friend because he is my pair, when the arrangements are working. Clearly, he has not heard me arguing my case before. I have always argued—consistently, I hope—that Scotland and Scottish interests are well looked after in this place because we have always enjoyed more than our percentage share of posts and influence. It is not only in this place—

Mr. Michael Connarty: rose—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Walker: I am answering my hon. Friend—at least, I hope that he will one day be my friend again so that we can get away from this place from time to time.
I have always argued—consistently, I hope—that in the spheres of science, arts and education, among others, the Scots have always enjoyed more than 9 per cent. of the key positions within the United Kingdom establishments.

Mr. Salmond: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is not always the case. He is saying that the individual success of individual Scots will do some national good. Did the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence is a Scot help Rosyth last year?

Mr. Walker: In the short term, the answer is yes. I do not wish to digress and talk about Rosyth, but I am happy to debate the details with the hon. Member at any time. I think that I know more about the case than he does, but in the short term the answer is yes.
I was developing my argument—

Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting an intervention. Instead of talking about personalities and the few people who make a difference, will he instead talk about the subject of today's debate which is about the lack of democracy in Scotland, the fact that the positions of power in Scotland are given to adherents of the Government's politics and the fact that they are, as it were, chosen by the Secretary of State, not by the people of Scotland?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I hope to develop my argument and deal with that point later. I shall not duck the issue, unlike the hon. Member for Dundee, East who failed to answer my question about what the next Labour Government would do. I try to answer questions, which sometimes upsets people. I occasionally upset my friends, but I try to answer so that the following week I do not have to try to remember what I said. It is best to answer honestly and objectively.

Sir Russell Johnston: It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to give way. I wish to follow the question put by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He asked whether the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence is a Scot was of advantage to Rosyth. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said yes. Does that mean that had the

Secretary of State for Defence been an Englishman it would have been of benefit to Tynemouth or that had he been a Welshman it would have been of benefit to some establishment in Wales?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman constantly talks about his being reasonable and moderate and other lovely adjectives. Let me put it this way: has he ever been a member of a body, at whatever level, in which common interest did not assist in decision making? It is true in golf clubs; it is true in Cabinets; it is true everywhere else. I got into terrible trouble before for suggesting what a good thing it was to have more than one Scot in the Cabinet. I believe that it is a massive advantage to Scotland to have Members representing Scottish constituencies in the Cabinet in addition to the Secretary of State. That is true in defence and in other sectors.
I wish to develop that argument with regard to Scotland's interests. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party's objective was to create a Scottish parliament, a Welsh parliament, and regional parliaments in England. Is that correct?

Mr. McAllion: What happens in England is a matter for the people of England. I would not dare to tell them how to run their domestic affairs and I do not think that they should tell us in Scotland how to run our domestic affairs.

Mr. Walker: I asked the hon. Gentleman about the policy and the likely practice of the next Labour Government. I will now discuss that, because I believe that it has some importance and significance for the basis of his argument. As I understand it, it is the policy of the next Labour Government to give the Scots their parliament, and to get that measure through the House on the basis that England will have regional assemblies. That is, as I understand it, the logic of the Labour party's case. Let me discuss that, because it is important to consider the situation.
We would have a number of regional assemblies in England—I do not know how many, but let us assume that there are five. That is not an unrealistic assumption. With 83 per cent. of the population, there could be as many as eight, but let us assume that there are five or six. Let us assume that there are six regional assemblies in England, one in Scotland and one in Wales, giving a total of eight. The views of Scotland would constitute one eighth of the views to be listened to at the centre, because the centre would be under the federal structure that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. There would still be a federal structure in the United Kingdom, in London, in whatever form, and therefore Scotland would have a one eighth contribution instead of the approximately one fifth contribution—at its worst—that it enjoys now.
Currently, there is a Scottish Secretary of State and at least one other Scottish member of the Cabinet, and they take decisions that affect the whole of the United Kingdom. That would change if the Labour party's proposals were implemented. We would adopt a system in which Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies would represent the same numbers of constituents as Members of Parliament with constituencies elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so that Scotland would lose its parliamentary representation and its power. Scotland would have less influence under the new system, because it would not be an equal.
I shall put it to the hon. Gentleman in simple language. I have listened to him argue his case and it has always seemed to me that he recognises that Scotland has less than 9 per cent. of the population, but he reckons that it has 50 per cent. of the equity in the United Kingdom. That, I think, is generally his view—that Scotland should have an equal say and an equal voice.

Mr. Gallie: I think that a point that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised with my hon. Friend should not go unchallenged. The hon. Member suggested to my hon. Friend that he was not interested in English affairs. However, if I recall correctly, he voted during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which dealt with many English matters. He voted, I understand, during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage (Hybrid) Act 1993, which was about Welsh affairs. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East is suggesting that he is not interested in other parts of the Union, it is not represented, to my mind, in his voting record.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend. Yes; it seems to me that Opposition Members are trying to have their cake and eat it. They are trying to claim that, because they will have that representation and their own parliament in Edinburgh, they will continue to have the same power and influence as they currently enjoy under the Westminster situation.
That case will be put to the Scottish people. I believe that, in whatever form it is put, they will reject the proposals. When we voted in Scotland on the question of the Scotland Act 1978, it was fairly clear that, when the matter came out into the public domain, the people of Scotland thought, "Hold on a minute; we do not want to pay for a talking shop simply because it will be there." One third of them rejected it; one third said, "Yes, we will support it"; but, critically, one third did not bother to vote. The people who did not vote "didnae care", and they "didnae care" because they had been told that if they absented themselves that would be the equivalent of a no vote. On the basis that that was how it was sold to the people during the referendum campaign, at least two thirds of the Scottish people either did not care or opposed the proposals. I reckon that one could add them together.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the so-called "democratic deficit" and what it appears to have done, but he glibly proceeds to discuss "pooling sovereignty". It is wonderful the way in which we pull out of the sky lovely phrases to suit any circumstances. What is meant by "pooling sovereignty"? My views about the constitution are well known to everyone and I will not describe them today, but I took my stand because I have strong views about the so-called "pooling of sovereignty".
The hon. Gentleman glibly uses it as a throw-away line. It is not that simple, as the hon. Gentleman should know, because it impinges on all other activities; I agree with him about that. Wealth generation, job creation, the way in which we deal with dampness in housing and all such matters have much to do with our economic performance—and when I say, "our economic performance", I make no apologies for saying that I mean the United Kingdom's economic performance.
I believe, sincerely, that the Union has benefited the Scots and the English out of all proportion to the sum of the two parts coming together. It is much greater than that.

That is why I think that when we speak about the "pooling of sovereignty", we must examine carefully what we are prepared to give or not to give.
The hon. Gentleman glibly skated around that. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), an Englishman—I do not hold that against him—spoke about a "marriage of convenience". He is obviously a student of history. If he is, he will know that many marriages of convenience have produced surprising results—very good results. If it was a marriage of convenience, using his description, he and others cannot deny that the ability to move anywhere in the United Kingdom seeking jobs, following one's career whether one is an artisan or a politician—in the hon. Gentleman's case, a politician—has been of enormous benefit to the people of the Clyde, because they have him as their hon. Member and, obviously, that has been a great benefit to him and to them. At least, being generous to him, I assume that it is. Therefore, he must accept that the Union, however it came about, has been of considerable benefit to him and to his constituents.
The economy is often critical to discussion of this subject. Has Scotland benefited from the Union? First, I will discuss Scotch whisky, about which I know that I will not get any argument from the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Has the Scotch whisky industry benefited from the Union? Yes, it has, because the Union created a substantial marketplace, a home market from which it was possible to expand into a world market that is the envy of many other industries. It is to the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has argued that point many times.
We want a good home base so that the export markets can be maximised. The home base for which we have always asked is the United Kingdom home base. When we argue on behalf of the home base, we are not talking about the consumption of Scotch whisky in Scotland alone. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that the Union has been beneficial for the home base of the Scotch whisky industry.
How about the economy generally? Between 1979 and 1991, the Scottish economy grew on average by 1·7 per cent.

Mr. Watson: Did the hon. Gentleman get a calculator for Christmas?

Mr. Walker: I have a calculator, but I did not get it this Christmas.
By comparison—this is an important point—the economy grew on average by less than 1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. I do not pick those years by accident; they are the years of a Labour Administration. It is possible that under the enlightened Labour Administration to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East looks forward, the Scottish economy could fare worse. It is a possibility, because that is what happened before; I do not put it any higher than that. What about living standards in Scotland? Gross domestic product per head increased by 30 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. That was brought about through the Union.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East and his hon. Friends talk about the "political deficit". What they are really talking about is the fact that the Labour party cannot get its hands on the levers of power. They are not talking about democracy. I do not doubt the integrity of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, as he knows. I was, therefore, astonished


that his right hon. and hon. Friends had managed to buy him off. How have they done it? What quango post have they given him? What have they promised him? What job has he been given? How has he been bought? Immediately following the general election, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—

Mr. McAllion: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not bought off with the price of Kevin Kelly's resignation.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been shut up somehow and told to line up with the rest of the troops, so he has stopped rocking the boat so violently. His approach to the problems of the Scottish democratic deficit is the Scotland United approach, which he does not deny. That is not the approach of Labour Front-Bench Members. We have at least managed to ascertain that their views are different from the hon. Gentleman's. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is speaking on behalf of the Opposition—excluding the narrow nationalists and the Liberal Democrat nationalists—he is actually speaking on behalf of his friends in Scotland United. Labour Front-Bench Members have a different view.
That fact does not surprise me. Labour Front-Bench Members think, "Gosh, we shall have a lot of Scots in the next Cabinet." They do not want to rock the boat because people in England may say, "Hold on! There are too many Scots in key positions." That is the backlash that one gets if one attempts to push too hard the business of "We poor Scots are downtrodden and we do not get things our way." Some 83 per cent. of the population of these islands live in England. A backlash would not, therefore, be in the best interests of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, of the House or of the Scottish people.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East talks about dire threats caused by the views taken by people such as myself. I am well aware of the risks and hazards of the road ahead; that is why I have spent so much of my life in politics and in Parliament trying to address that. I have put forward ideas which, as is the case with the hon. Gentleman, have not always been well received by Front-Bench colleagues. However, one has to look carefully at the risks of the route that one proposes. I have never accepted that the Union is cast in concrete or that it cannot be modified. That is why I have suggested changes.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to appointments to non-elected bodies. I have been asked to address that point and I do not want somebody to say, "You have not addressed that point, Mr. Walker." We must be careful about excluding anyone from statutory bodies. My personal view is that there should be fewer statutory bodies, but I believe that as long as the bodies exist, we must be careful not to say, "You cannot be a member of a statutory body because you are a trade unionist" or, "You cannot be a member of a statutory body because you are a business man."
There have been two resignations from Scottish Enterprise Tayside. The chairman-designate properly took the view that there was a conflict of interests. It was not a conflict of interests that would have damaged the interests of the people of Tayside, but the chairman-designate honestly believed that, as chairman of a company, he could not be seen to be promoting the interests of other companies. He was probably right. However, if we are to

get the best people for the jobs—that is all that we should look for—we should not exclude someone because his trade union interests will inevitably conflict with others.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the point at this stage. Everyone on Tayside was sickened to hear that James Miller had decided not to accept the chairmanship of Scottish Enterprise Tayside. He was eminently suited to taking on that task. Our objection was on the basis that he was appointed without any consultation. He was appointed by Scottish Enterprise Tayside, which is directly answerable to Scottish Enterprise, which is, in turn, directly answerable to the Secretary of State. That is a rather convoluted formula.
When the Secretary of State for Employment announced the formation of the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies, I, as a member of the Select Committee on Employment, pointed out the problem to him, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) will recall. We raised the conundrum with the Secretary of State. There must be a conflict of interests when the head of one company takes decisions about promoting other companies, which will affect his company. That is bound to happen.

Mr. Walker: Any director of a company who accepts an appointment to a quango must understand that there is a real possibility that he will face a conflict of interests. I accept that, and I equally accept that a trade unionist would be put in the same position. That is not a reason for condemning such individuals and it is not a reason for excluding them.
Like the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I was bitterly disappointed by the resignation of the chairman-designate because I thought that he was eminently suited to the position. He was the ideal chap to follow Bill Low, a constituent of mine who did a good job.
That shows that those of us who are involved in political life should be careful when we comment on who should be a member of a quango. Quangos should be open to the best people, whoever they are and wherever they come from. The system for appointments must ensure that interests are declared. We have largely achieved that—we have certainly done so in the House, where the Register of Members' Interests is available for public inspection.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East raised that subject in the debate. Although it is an important subject, this is neither the right context nor the right debate in which to raise such a matter.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The other resignation has more alarming consequences for democracy in Scotland and needs to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The person who resigned was, in effect, a civil servant with business interests. That conflict led to his resignation. The Secretary of State needs to take account of that. Could hon. Members imagine the chief executive of Tayside region or of Dundee district council being allowed to be a business person? A conflict of interest would arise immediately. That needs to be dealt with. Will the hon. Member comment on that?

Mr. Walker: I have already publicly commented on the matter and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that.
People who are paid substantial salaries to be involved in the distribution of public assets should not allow themselves to get into a position where a conflict of interest could arise and affect their judgment. Hon. Members, councillors or anyone else in public office face such a problem in their public lives. Chief executives of regions, district councils or enterprise companies should not allow themselves to be put into a position where they could be considered to have a conflict of interest, which would raise doubts about their integrity. The integrity of those in charge of such organisations should never be in doubt.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East spoke of people being appointed to quangos. A quango will operate effectively only if it has the right mix of talents, which, I have always believed, requires trade union input. Under our democratic process, one must be prepared to accept that there should always be an avenue of expression for another view, even if one does not agree with it.
That is why I believe that it is good that the hon. Member for Dundee, East speaks on such matters in the House; it gives him the opportunity to express his concerns and doubts. If nothing else, he will persuade the Unionists sitting behind and in front of him that he is wrong and that people such as myself are perhaps more right than he is.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. One hour and 48 minutes are available for debate and no fewer than 10 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief.
May I join those who, earlier in the debate, sought to establish their credentials? I seem to be the first Member to speak tonight who is married to a Scot. It will interest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that I am the only Yorkshire-born Scots Member in the House, and I hope to be here for a long time. My wife could regard me as a foreigner, of course, but she also sees me as a fellow Scot.
I am grateful for, and readily acknowledge, the honest statements of the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) that the Union is subject to change. They would not deny that it is legitimate to examine and criticise the governance of a country and to suggest, by way of prescriptions, a better way of governing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an excellent speech, although I have one or two reservations about it. I understand why he is critical of multinational companies and of their role in the Scottish economy, but I am sure that he will agree that some of them are a damn sight better than indigenous employers. A local employer in my constituency is to become chairman of the Inverclyde Royal hospital trust, but the wages he pays his employees are among the lowest in the region.
I am pleased to say that IBM is in my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) sometimes thinks that it is in his constituency. It is the biggest private employer, and gives good terms and conditions of employment.
BMW's takeover of Rover was announced last week. I wish that BMW were locating in my constituency, because I know from my knowledge of German industrial relations

that it would have to introduce a Scottish mitbestimmung. Workers at BMW plants in Scotland would be given formal, effective trade union representation. Moreover, employment directives passed in Brussels would be implemented in Greenock or wherever a company such as BMW decided to locate. There are advantages to multinationals, and I should love more to locate in my constituency.
It is right to question the way in which Scotland is governed. I am a federalist, and I want to see a federalist European Union with its foreign and security policies. I want Scotland to be a federal nation in a federal system. It is wrong that Scotland is part of a multinational state that is overwhelmingly determined and shaped by London—by metropolitan thinking and decision-making.
Soon, members of the Scottish Prison Officers Association, who do a first-class job, often in difficult circumstances, will have their right to industrial action removed. Prisons will be privatised under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is now in Committee. There are only two Scottish Members on that Committee, despite the fact that 40 per cent. of its content relates partially or exclusively to Scotland.
Tomorrow morning, the Committee will debate a legal concept that is new to Scotland—trespassory assembly. With his legal training, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will know more about it than me. He may smile, but I have already received representations from anglers, hill walkers and even Monro baggers, not that I am one myself, about clauses 44 to 55 of that largely English Bill. They have made those representations because the clauses are aimed at sorting out hunt saboteurs, new age travellers and those who organise raves. I have already asked the Minister at what point a rave becomes a ceilidh.
By and large, we do not face such problems in Scotland. I was talking to an old friend of mine, Jimmy Harvie, an 84-year-old ex-Glasgow bricklayer. He and his late lovely wife, Pearl, walked Scotland's hills for more than 60 years. People like Jimmy Harvie and other walkers, ramblers and fishermen are to be excluded from their favourite haunts. That is utterly scandalous, and those clauses should riot refer to Scottish pastimes at all. The average hill walker in Scotland is extremely fastidious—one does not find much litter on Schiehallion, Lochnagar, Ben Ledi or Ben Vorlich. People are careful on the hills in terms of protecting the environment.
As for fishermen, there should be public access to all our rivers. The rich perhaps should be dumped in the rivers—where the rivers are shallow, of course. There should not be the shackling by the new lairds who come in and buy up estates. Those people seem to have a curious idea of the existing law of trespass.

Mr. Gallie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many small fishing clubs in Scotland with a membership who certainly are not rich? The members of those clubs stock the rivers and ensure that people can enjoy fishing. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that their rights on the river should not be acknowledged?

Dr. Godman: That is an important point. I am a member of two such clubs—the Port Glasgow club and the Newark angling club. Both clubs have many unemployed and retired members, and they are deeply concerned about the Government's plans for the management of Scotland's waterways. It is a complicated problem.
The Scottish element of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill should have formed an exclusive Scottish Bill, so that we could scrutinise and seek to amend it. It should not have been lumped in with an English Bill which is aimed at problems south of the border. That is an absurdity.
We have spent hours and hours talking about the abolition of the right to silence, but the right to silence is not affected in Scotland. That is an English matter. The right to silence remains in the police stations and the courts in Scotland, and that is how it should be. Scottish issues should not be lumped in with English issues on Standing Committees. It is disgraceful.
That is one reason why I will always argue for a Scottish Parliament. Those matters could be argued among Members who would be elected by a different electoral system. The one we have is a "rotten borough" kind of system.
Does the Minister agree that one element of a parliamentary democracy is the ease of access given to representatives of local communities for meetings with Ministers? If he does, when will he respond to invitations given to him by way of the editor of the Greenock Telegraph and representatives from the east end of Greenock to visit that area? Despite the valiant efforts of Inverclyde district council, the east end still suffers severe blight in terms of rotten, lousy, damp and cold houses which are lived in by people who simply do not have the financial means to escape that kind of housing imprisonment. Will the Minister come to the east end of Greenock to see that for himself?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Greenock, as I have done with all invitations from Opposition Members.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I was too modest to mention it, but I sent my own invitation a couple of weeks ago. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted with his characteristic generosity.
The critics of radical change on the Government Benches seem to accept some form of stilted evolutionary change to the Union. Judging by what constituents of all ages say to me when I do my walkabouts—that is a horrible word—they are deeply disenchanted and discontented with the present system for the governance of Scotland. The overwhelming majority of people in Scotland would welcome the setting up of a multi-option referendum. We could then determine whether it is those who share my view who are closer to the hearts and minds of the people in Scotland, or the honest apologists for the Union on the Government Benches.
I have mentioned Defoe, that English secret agent from all those years ago. He talked about the Union as a marriage of convenience which would best suit English interests and, by and large, that still holds today. However, it will change. We are extremely fortunate that the secessionist movement in Scotland is so honourably peaceable. The change will come, and the best way to help bring it about is to set up a multi-option referendum.

Mr. George Kynoch: The motion before the House is wide, and I found it difficult to decide what aspect to address.
We have heard the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) talking about a multinational company within his constituency and the amount it contributes, presumably to the economy of his constituency. Yet the motion talks about
the undemocratic influence and power of transnational and multinational companies in the economic life of Scotland".
I have to tell the hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. McAllion) that I am happy that a significant amount is given by multinational and transnational oil companies to my area and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Without them, the economy of our area would be that much poorer. I find it strange that the hon. Member for Dundee, East uses those terms, as I know that his area also contains a significant number of multinational companies.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Timex multinational company had a long association with Dundee. However, it ripped off its Dundee workers and walked away to make its profits elsewhere in the world. I warn the hon. Gentleman that multinational companies could do that in his constituency.

Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman introduced Timex into the debate, as I was just about to refer to that company. I had hoped that the kind of industrial relations which were prevalent at Timex were behind us. I am not saying that it was the fault of one side or the other, because the faults clearly lay with employers and employees.
I can remember what industrial relations were like before the Government came to power in 1979, and I clearly remember the coal strike of the late 1970s. Pickets were standing at our factory gates when we had no grievance with any of our suppliers, but they prevented coal from being delivered to our company, and therefore affected the output and the economy of the area.
Thankfully, the Conservative Government came to power with a clear remit to reform union relations and to ensure that greater flexibility and accountability were given to employees, so that they could work in peace and harmony with their employers.
I am sorry to say that that did not work at Timex. The so-called picket line, which I understood was legally meant to consist of no more than five or six people, was supplemented by a demonstration of several hundred people. That was taking full advantage of the law, and it made a mockery of the law. I hope that, as time goes on, that can be clarified and tightened. Multinational and transnational companies can contribute a significant amount to the economy of Scotland, and I will return to that subject.
I would like to talk about some of the quangos which have been referred to in the motion. There is a direct reference to NHS trusts, and to
the Scottish Enterprise network of companies".
I worked closely with the Scottish Development Agency when I was in the textile trade, and I continued to do so when it became Scottish Enterprise and set up local enterprise companies. I subsequently became one of the founder directors of Moray, Badennoch and Strathspey local enterprise company. We welcomed a trade union representative on the board of that company, as well as representatives from local government and businesses throughout the area.
That board reflected the geographical spread of local companies. That great strength had been lacking under the previous SDA set-up, because, in the north-east corner of Scotland, it was felt that the SDA was a Glasgow-based organisation. Although it had a regional office in Aberdeen, it was geared towards oil, and it was felt that the indigenous industries were a second thought to the SDA. By devolving the functions of the SDA and incorporating the training agency, the local enterprise companies democratised a system that did a lot of good for Scotland at the time.
I pay tribute to the significant benefits given to local people by Grampian Enterprise and the subcontractor in my area, the Kincardine and Deeside enterprise trust. The people who sit on the board of Grampian Enterprise give of their best and of their experience to ensure the balanced delivery of services in Grampian. It is insulting for those people that they are dismissed as Government placemen by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, because I know that they give of their time willingly, and without any recompense, to the benefit of the region.
I sat on the board of a local enterprise company, and I know what happened when a conflict of interest arose. The directors simply declared their interest, and either left the room or stayed to answer the relevant questions of other board members, without participating in the debate. That is the normal practice when any conflict of interest arises.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East has also described national health trusts as another Government quango. In the run-up to the award of trust status to the Aberdeen Royal hospitals NHS trust, I was politically unique in the north-east, because I supported the bid. I know that Opposition Members, of whichever party, were against it, and I suspect that certain of my colleagues had great reservations.
That trust, however, has provided greater flexibility and greater accountability in the delivery of health care in the area. It has meant that the delivery of health care has been brought closer and is more appropriate to the people. It offers more flexibility than was available in directly managed units.
According to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, that so-called quango is destroying democracy in Scotland, but it is worth considering what it has achieved in its first year of operation, 1992–93. According to the trust's annual report:
A record number of patients were treated in 1992–93
over 2,500 more in-patients were treated
over 8,900 more out-patients attendances
over 1,900 more day cases
over 800 more operations.
The Trust has waiting time guarantees for in-patients of 12 months, and less for specific procedures.
Those figures prove that trust status has been successful. It has been welcomed by local people.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that South Ayrshire Trust, which is adjacent to my constituency, can boast of similar rates of success. The chairman of that trust, who has done a remarkable job, was certainly not seen as a friend of the Conservative party in the past. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a perfect response to the challenge from Opposition Members who constantly carp about Conservative appointees?

Mr. Kynoch: I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend. I am well aware that trust members are appointed because of the experience that they bring to their local

areas. Those representatives may be trade unionists, employers, employees, male, female and members of whatever political party, as long as they can contribute to the well-being of the trust. I believe that is absolutely right.
It is important to remember that half of any NHS trust board is made up of medically qualified people. Non-executive members from outside the medical profession do not make up the majority on any trust board.
When the Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust was established, it was argued that it would be opposed from within and that there would be appalling employee-employer relations. It was argued that it would lead to the downfall of the NHS in the north-east, but the exact opposite has occurred. In the first year of its operation, the trust has improved employee-employer relations through an effective staff board, which discusses staffing issues. I can quote a specific example of such an improvement from the trust's annual report, which says of junior doctors' hours of work:
Staff at all levels—medical, nursing and para-medical—have helped in the substantial efforts made to reduce Junior Doctors' hours.
That objective of the Conservative party has been brought about by the trust through partnership rather than conflict.
The trust should not be knocked by the Opposition as a quango, because it has already made significant developments in the delivery of clinical care. Bone marrow transplantations are now available in Aberdeen and that specialist form of medicine has been greatly welcomed. The trust has also taken delivery of a new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, which is better known as an MRI scanner. The trust also offers a local lithotripsy service, provided by a mobile unit, to get rid of kidney stones.
All those benefits have been brought about by a so-called quango, which has also increased the number of cardiac operations, which is pertinent to the Scottish population because of the incidence of heart disease. I do not believe that we should knock trust status; we should welcome it because of the benefits that it has brought to the health service.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Dundee, East also believes that that quango is more remote from the people than the old system of health care, but he should take note of what the trust's annual report has said about bringing health services closer to patients. It stated:
Over the year we cared for 82,245 in-patients and 388,001 out-patients. All users of our services are encouraged to tell us what they think of our services—whether good or bad
Those people were encouraged to comment on the delivery of services and the trust received just 440 formal complaints. That means that fewer than one in 1,000 patients made a complaint. Something must be going right with that quango. I believe that those benefits demonstrate the advantages of flexibility within the NHS and of involving local people in the running of the health service.
The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East also refers to local government reform. We are currently considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in Committee. I am amused when I hear Opposition Members claim that that reform will diminish the power of local democracy in Scotland. In recent weeks I have read a number of newspaper articles about the Labour-controlled council of Monklands. It is alleged that the council operates in a fashion that is far from democratic. Apparently, at the end of last week, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)


at long last entered the debate and is now asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to investigate some of the allegations. I think that that is right and that we should try to achieve the democratic delivery of local services.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman also asking the Secretary of State to institute an inquiry, or is he simply leaving it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? Does he associate the name of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), with Westminster council in the same way as he so glibly associates my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East with Monklands council?

Mr. Kynoch: I shall not be drawn down that path because we are discussing the future of democracy in Scotland. Unless we intend to take over the future of Westminster, we must contain our comments to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, makes my point clear.
In my part of Scotland, the population desperately wants single-tier authorities as soon as possible. Although there are queries about some of the proposed boundaries, such fine detail will soon be debated fully in Committee. People want to rationalise and reduce the overheads of local government and bring local democracy closer to the people.
As I said on Second Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is interesting to note that all the Opposition parties advocate single-tier authorities. But the big difference is that they also want a Scottish parliament, which would be an extra and more costly tier. According to 1994–95 figures, Government-supported spending per capita in Scotland is some 34 per cent. higher than in England. Perhaps I should say that quietly as the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary has an English constituency and might be upset to learn that. Scotland gets 26 per cent. more than Wales. I must therefore assume that, if we had a Scottish parliament as the Opposition advocate, such spending would not be allowed to continue and Scotland would have to make up the shortfall.
I hope that the Scottish electorate is aware of the Opposition parties' proposals on local government reform and a Scottish parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to the number of Opposition Members with aspirations for a Cabinet position, who would then have to decide whether to sit in a Scottish Cabinet or a Cabinet in London. That might cause some interesting problems for the Opposition.
The motion does not make its point. I feel proud and positive about many aspects of government, trusts, Scottish Enterprise and LECs, which have made a positive contribution towards Scotland's economy.

Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on initiating the debate. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have a balanced debate if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) takes advantage of the limited

time available to us. He spoke for 34 minutes and then disappeared. That is unreasonable behaviour. I hope to speak for less than 10 minutes.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East began by saying that people "must have their say and their way". He pointed out that the Scottish people had voted three to one in favour of some form of Scottish self-government. He did not, however, feel it necessary to mention that it was wrong for Labour to have 68 per cent. of Scottish seats in exchange for 39 per cent. of the vote. We do not have a fair voting system so that people can have their say and their way.

Mr. McAllion: I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As vice-chairman of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, I am a long-term supporter of proportional representation both for a Scottish parliament and at the level of the United Kingdom.

Sir Russell Johnston: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said, which has the added bonus of shortening my speech. I no longer need to make a long statement about the value of proportional representation, as he accepts it. That also affects patronage and other matters, which I need not go through.
Without federalism within the United Kingdom, subsidiarity in the European Community is a sham. The Government see it not as decentralisation or enabling more citizens directly to influence decisions that affect them, but as a way of defending Whitehall. The Government will oppose progressive social and environmental change agreed consensually in Brussels and Strasbourg, such as is contained in the motion that will be debated later today. But, on the basis of a quarter of the vote, they will impose on Scotland educational change, changes in the health service, changes in the ownership of public utilities, and changes in local government which the majority do not want. That makes no sense whatever.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) leapt to the defence of quangos, saying that they were marvellous, closer in touch with the people, enormously politically balanced, fair and great. He justified that by saying that the Aberdeen Royal hospital's NHS trust had done more cardiac operations. I have no doubt that people under communist regimes said that, and that Franco built a lot of hospitals. If that is the hon. Gentleman's criterion of whether democracy is desirable, he does not understand the issue.

Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I said that half the members of the trust board were medical staff? Under the previous system of directly managed units, the medical staff had no say in the running of their hospital. They can now have an input and allow local flexibility in the delivery of services to achieve the positive results to which I referred.

Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the new quangos are better than the old quangos, that is one argument. I simply do not like quangos, so my argument is different.
On local government reform, older Members may remember that, from 1966–69, I served on the Wheatley commission, appointed by the late—it would be fair to say great—Willie Ross, later Lord Ross of Marnock. It was a balanced commission, on which the late Betty Harvie Anderson, who was certainly no socialist, also sat.
Ultimately, it produced a consensual agreement on the way forward. The essense of what was said then was that we wanted stronger, more effective local government, which was less in thrall to central Government. If it could not stand up to central Government, it was no longer local. There is no justification for changes which no one has sought. They have been determined within a party which represents only a quarter of the Scottish electorate, and are clearly designed to strengthen central Government and weaken local government. That is the result of more authorities, in my view. My view is not entirely in line with my party's view, but as one gets older one is allowed more freedom in these matters.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Hear, hear.

Sir Russell Johnston: I never used to get cheers from the hon. Gentleman—it is very encouraging.
I must tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East, much of whose speech I agreed with, that the hope of achieving Scottish home rule has persisted for a long time. It goes back to Gladstone and to the Bill that Asquith brought as far as Second Reading in 1914. The Bill fell. After the second world war, the idea was partly responsible for the growth of the Liberal party and of the Scottish National party in Scotland.
The Labour party was converted—or rather, reconverted, since Keir Hardie believed in it—to home rule in time. We can therefore assert in all fairness that there is an established and stable demand for self-government in Scotland. That more than justifies the call for a multi-option referendum to establish openly and officially the attitudes of the Scottish people. I hope that the Scottish political parties will then be able to base an agreed solution on the result.

Mr. Henry McLeish: This has been an important debate, and it is a debate which will continue. It is also a timely debate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) not only on winning the debate but on advancing, with his characteristic passion, the need for a Scottish parliament. He will have only a few years to wait until we have a Labour Government setting up a Scottish parliament in Edinburgh to tackle some of the real problems that the present Government have ignored because of their obsession with centralisation, contracting out and a market philosophy.
Quangos are at the top of the Scottish political agenda nowadays, and they clearly embarrass the Government. The issue disconcerts the business community because the public interest is now playing second fiddle to private and vested interests. Over the past few weeks and months, fraud, corruption and the woeful misuse of public funds seem to have been high on the agenda of a certain minority.
The Secretary of State for Scotland seems unconcerned, sitting idly by while these activities unfold. He seems either unwilling or unable to intervene. A new era is unfolding in Scotland in which the promotion of the culture of closet croneyism is well to the fore. Nearly 5,000 people behind closed doors spend almost £7 billion of public money, with only tenuous lines of accountability to the Scottish Office, Parliament, the press or the public.
It is important to use this opportunity to offer our response to a speech that the Secretary of State made in

Scotland today, ostensibly to set the record straight on quangos. The speech offered him a chance to come clean and to accept the widespread criticism of quangos. Tragically, that did not happen. The Secretary of State deliberately attempted to distort the debate on quangos by asserting that the number of executive public bodies had declined from 84 in 1980 to less than half that number now.
The real issue, of course, is why there are 167 quangos in Scotland. Was the right hon. Gentleman being disingenuous? Was he trying to distort the debate? Those 167 organisations operate outwith the usual realms of public scrutiny. It is not only their numbers that cause concern, but the fact that their powers have been rapidly extended. They spend an extraordinary amount of the Scottish public expenditure budget. We should also remember that in 1992 the Scottish Office had more executive bodies than did any other Department in the United Kingdom.
As quoted in the Evening Times, the Secretary of State attacked his critics as follows:
What nonsense! The number of public bodies has actually fallen over the past decade, as the Government made services work better and with more thought for the taxpayer's wallet.
That clearly shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what a quango is. Either that, or he has attempted to mislead the Scots in a major speech today. Meanwhile, I challenge the Minister to explain whether the Secretary of State is right and I am wrong about the increasing number of quangos.
In the same article the Secretary of State is quoted as saying:
Many Health Boards and hospital trusts have meetings open to the public and I would like to see the rest follow their lead.
What an extraordinary statement. We argue for open government, while the Secretary of State says that he would like more public meetings held by these bodies. Why does the Secretary of State not open up all these quangos to scrutiny by press and public?
It is clear that the Secretary of State is complacent about quangos. He has whitewashed the deplorable record of some of them in the past few months, and he is trying to shift the blame away from his appointments and to lay it on the Opposition parties in Scotland, which are demanding firm action to clean up the quangos before we hear more stories of sleaze and corruption in Scottish public life.
The Secretary of State has also been back-pedalling on reforms that he promised in this House—minimal reforms to improve the handling of Scottish business. If we can believe the article in The Scotsman of 5 February, that much becomes apparent. We agreed that the reforms should come before the House, so what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that? It appears that he is running scared. After the fiasco of the Peterken affair in Glasgow, surely he does not want Lord Fraser to come and answer questions in the Committee. Why are the Government back-pedalling on such an important issue?
Last week, the right hon. Gentleman withdrew from the Scottish local government Committee. Is his commitment to this form of democracy in Scotland waning? Has he no stomach for a fight?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has been unfair, suggesting that the Secretary of State is backing away from a fight and is not meeting his obligations. My right hon. Friend promised Scotland single-tier local government and


he is going to give it that. His absence from the Committee has to do with parliamentary procedures and a lack of co-operation on the part of Opposition Members.

Mr. McLeish: It is typical of the humbug of Conservative Members that they want the Secretary of State to proceed with the only thing that Scotland does not want—the reorganisation of local government. What about corruption in quangos? What about the right hon. Gentleman's back-pedalling on fundamental reforms to improve the government of Scotland at Westminster? If this is such a flagship policy, why does the Secretary of State run away from appearing in the Committee and dealing with his own business? It is pathetic. He seems to be getting bored with his brief and to want to give up his involvement in much of Scottish affairs.
Quite apart from trying to defend the indefensible—quangos—the right hon. Gentleman should apologise for introducing the most centralised state in the western world to Scotland. Other countries in Europe and in eastern Europe are trying to reform their democracies and to decentralise. Our Government are secretive and are massively centralising every power that belongs to local authorities.
Finally, the Secretary of State is also gerrymandering. This Secretary of State makes Westminster and Wandsworth look like a tea party. The biggest and most expensive vote-rigging exercise in Scottish history is being enacted in Committee. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggests that it could cost up to £700 million for a set of organisations that no one wants but which the Scots will have to pay for. If that is not expensive vote rigging, I do not know what is.
This evening, we have mentioned taking stock, the Government reneging on their commitment, quangos and the Secretary of State not having the guts to face up to some of the endemic corruption within those organisations. We have also mentioned the cost of vote rigging in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The real tragedy, however, is that when—and if—the measure is passed nearly 100 extra statutory committees and quangos will be created.
The Secretary of State said in Scotland today that he is hunting down quangos to slay them. What nonsense. Who is he trying to deceive? Any Conservative Member who has read the Bill will realise that from the three super water quangos downwards it is not about single-tier but about multi-tier authorities and about centralisation, quangos and statutory committees before we get to gerrymandered authorities which cannot provide services.
Why is the Secretary of State so afraid of democracy and its institutions? Is it because the ballot box in Scotland has not delivered for the Tories? Is it because they are obsessed with the free market ideology, which requires the destruction of accountable institutions and public organisations? Or is the Secretary of State merely wedded to centralisation and elective dictatorship? Is it not simply that the Government have been in office far too long and are complacent and contemptuous of public opinion to the extent that any idea of listening or responding has been thrown out of the window?
We need to rebuild Scotland's democracy and to recreate the conditions in which our democratic institutions can fight back. We need to reassert our commitment to rein

back the rapidly expanding frontiers of the unelected state and instead renew our commitment to elected government and all the institutions associated with that.
Scotland does not want falling standards in public life, or waste, or the sleaze that is undermining public confidence. It wants a Government who are committed to scrutinising effectively nearly £7 billion of public expenditure.
The Under-Secretary of State should set up a public inquiry to study the functions of quangos in Scotland. He should also set up an independent review of the corruption that daily unfolds in our newspapers and on television. He should stop the asset stripping of local democracy that will result from the nonsense that we are calling the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. He should dedicate himself to renewing democratic principles and he should stop lambasting local councillors while his Secretary of State unashamedly praises people who are not worthy of that praise.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Until last week, I never realised that, in his armoury, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) possessed the ability to predict the future. When he chose the debate he could not have known how timely it would be. Last week we witnessed the constitutional capers of the Scottish National party—showing the usual maturity of a primary seven mock election—and later in the week the constitutional contradictions and contortions of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. and learned member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
At the beginning of last week, the hon. Member for Hamilton attempted to polish up his Unionist credentials and then put them on display for all to see as he set about defending the rights of English Members of Parliament to serve on Scottish Standing Committees. He did so seemingly oblivious of the fact that that was in direct contradiction to his leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East who, during the debate on the Loyal Address, said:
An overwhelming majority of the hon. Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies are against the Bills that will only be carried by the votes of English Conservatives who do not represent the people in the countries concerned."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 24.]
Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Hamilton was in turn contradicted by his leader who said that it was "wrong" for constitutional parallels to be drawn between Scotland and Northern Ireland, ignoring the fact that his shadow Secretary of State had written to the Prime Minister only weeks before arguing exactly the opposite.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not tell us whether it was the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East or the hon. Member for Hamilton—who had said completely contradictory things—who won that battle. I should gladly give way to the hon. Member for Fife, Central if he wished to tell us who won the battle, but I see that he does not want to intervene. The issues raise many questions but none more fundamental than who is deciding Labour's constitutional policy.
Today's debate is very welcome to Conservative Members. All the Opposition parties have refused to learn the lessons of the April 1992 general election. Let me remind them that at that election only the Scottish


Conservatives were able to increase their votes and their representation in the House. The nationalists never received their mandate for independence and lost two seats.
While preparing for today's debate I happened to chance on the leaflet issued by the SNP at that election, which was called, "Six Steps to Independence". It is worth while mentioning the first steps, if only to inject some humour into our proceedings. According to the SNP:
Step One: You vote for the only party honestly offering to bring real power back to Scotland.
Step Two: We win the majority of Scottish seats at the election. That gives us the mandate to negotiate Independence.
How the nationalists' slogan of "Scotland free by '93" must haunt them. I see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) at least has the good grace to cringe when that is mentioned.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robertson: The Labour party did not fare any better as its neo-separatist bandwagon was derailed and in classic marginal seats, such as mine, the electorate swung behind the Unionist cause and rejected Labour's plans to play fast and loose with the constitution.
The Liberals were also marginalised as a force—albeit a small one—in Scottish politics. They lost one seat and came close to losing four others. However, some Liberals have learnt their lesson. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was widely quoted last year when he mentioned the dangers to his party in Scotland that would be unleashed by a close association with the Labour party in the constitutional convention.
The Opposition parties have all failed in their own way to learn the lesson of April 1992.

Mrs. Ewing: What about the Conservatives?

Mr. Robertson: When we went into that election we Conservatives were not embarrassed by our Unionist credentials. We did not keep them quiet in case anyone noticed that we were fundamentally and unequivocally different from every other political party contesting the election in Scotland. The courageous decision by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to put the question of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom at the centre of our appeal was crucial and proved decisive. Only we stood, and still stand, full square behind the Union. At that election, only the Conservatives offered Scotland the chance to continue to be a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom and the Scottish people duly responded to that message.
Two years later the Opposition parties cannot resist refighting battles that they have long since lost. Bluntly, they are nothing more than constitutional masochists, intent on settling old scores in pursuit of something that they desire for their political ends but that the Scottish people continually reject. I do not usually quote the hon. Member for Dunfermline East, (Mr. Brown), but he summed it up last year when he said in a lecture at Edinburgh university:
I think we are making a mistake if we just assume there is a huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland.
For once, the shadow Chancellor was right.
The Scottish people want the sort of devolution that the Government have been delivering. For 15 years, the Government have been giving the Scottish people power over the homes that they live in, the schools that they send

their children to, the utilities that deliver the key services that they use and—most importantly—the power to play their full part in the United Kingdom.
The reform of local government empowers the Scottish people even further, because there will no longer be buck passing from district to region and vice versa. The electorate will no longer have to deal with two sets of councillors and be passed from pillar to post and back again. The reforms that we are debating in the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill will lead to greater accountability, enhanced sensitivity to local needs and to much more local local government for every voter and service user in Scotland.
We all know Labour's views on local government. Members of the Standing Committee will no doubt hear them again and again during the coming weeks and months. Labour Members want to strip local government of its responsibilities and invest them in an Edinburgh-based, Glasgow-run Scottish assembly. Or, as councillor Jean McFadden, Labour president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, said:
There may well be a tendency for the Scottish Parliament to suck up power from below.
Given the shower opposite, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there most certainly would be such a tendency. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Norman Hogg: At the end of the day, Scottish local government is run by people elected at the ballot box. They are overwhelmingly Labour. I accept that the people reject the nobodies in the SNP, and they certainly reject the Conservative party, but, overwhelmingly, they elect Labour Members. Surely they are qualified to speak on behalf of local government in a way that the hon. Gentleman is not.

Mr. Robertson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman realises what Councillor McFadden said; a Scottish assembly would "suck up power" from local councils and strip local authorities throughout Scotland of powers. It is not me saying that but the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is probably correct. There is a very real possibility that the Scottish parliament would find it difficult to reorganise Scottish local government because of resistance within local government. That stems from a fear of all government, because of the way that local government has been treated over the years, most notably by the Conservative Government, who have sought to destroy democratic control.

Mr. Robertson: We have had a real confession here today. Believe me, the hon. Gentleman's words will come back to haunt him.
The bottom line of the Labour-Liberal assembly proposals is to concentrate all power in Edinburgh and have that power dominated by the central belt, to the detriment of every other part of Scotland. The Labour party doubts its ability to win power at Westminster; it keeps losing the match, so it wants to change the game. We hear much about gerrymandering from the Labour party, but that is the real gerrymandering that the people of Scotland face.
As the party of the Union, we have never been frightened to question how the Union is working. As I said earlier, we have never failed to look at its failings as well as its strengths. Unionism is not blind, dogmatic adherence


to the present constitutional arrangements, to what Opposition parties all call the status quo. The Union that we have in 1994 is not the Union of 1707—indeed, how could it possibly be so? It has constantly adapted to changing circumstances, moved with the times and been flexible. That is where the Opposition parties get it helplessly and utterly wrong. In denying the dynamism of the Union, they deny history itself.
To listen to Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dundee, East who moved the motion, the House would be forgiven for thinking that Scotland's history ended in 1707 and its nationhood ceased to exist with the signing of the Act of Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scotland has had its best days since 1707—in culture, commerce and influence. Let us never forget that it was as part of the Union that our literature became world famous: Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "Treasure Island"; Robert Burns, "Tam O'Shanter"; Sir Walter Scott, the Waverley novels; Conan Doyle, "Sherlock Holmes"; and Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations".
As part of the Union, Edinburgh became known as the Athens of the north, where the Scottish enlightenment took place. It was as part of the Union that Scottish soldiers fought for the Crown against Napoleon in one century and in two world wars in the next. It was as part of the Union that Clyde-built ships became masters of the seas and trade routes. It is as part of the Union that, in the 20th century, one in 10 of all the world's personal computers is made in Scotland. It was as part of the Union that Scottish inventiveness gave the world the steam engine, penicillin, television, telephone and the pneumatic tyre. It was as part of the Union that Scottish education was the first to be free and compulsory.
In Robert Owen, we led the way in social reform at New Lanark. It was as part of the Union that Scottish Christian missionaries pioneered in the mission fields of Africa and the far east. It was as part of the Union—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will like this—that my noble Friend Lord Mackay, a Scottish lawyer with no English legal training, became Lord Chancellor of Great Britain.
That heritage is far too precious to throw away. Scottish culture today is just as distinct and proud as it has ever been. We have unique ways of doing things: in visible and tangible ways such as our legal system, our education system and our Church and in less obvious ways such as our acceptance of a shared inheritance and broadly similar attitudes and values. Those ways are just as pronounced and obvious, and are still cherished as much today, as they were all those centuries ago.
Far from destroying the character of the Scot and compromising his unique national characteristics, Unionism has enhanced them. They have been a powerful force in forging the destiny of the United Kingdom and, through the United Kingdom, the wider world. Far from creating a Britain of uniform Britons, the Union has benefited from encouraging the diversity of its people.
Nobody should forget that it was the Conservative party which continually updated Scotland's institutions and constitution and a Conservative Government who first established the Scottish Office and upgraded the office of Secretary for Scotland to a full Secretary of State within

the Cabinet. It was in that proud tradition that "Partnership for Good" was written and presented to the House—the next milestone in the continuing evolution of the Union. That is why the Union is ready to face up to, and meet head on, the challenges of the 21st century and will celebrate its 300th anniversary in great shape.
Curiously, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly said, the union of the old Soviet Union died after 70 years because it had none of that. The Soviet Union imposed uniformity and demanded conformity, suppressed culture and nationhood and survived by constantly rewriting history. In complete contrast, our Union positively encourages diversity and can accommodate nationalism. The events at Murrayfield on Saturday were testimony to that, although hon. Members will forgive me if I do not dwell on that encounter for too long.
In conclusion, Scotland's place is as a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom. The Scottish people have shown time and again that they do not want to see the old saltire ripped from the Union flag. The Union has endured and it will endure—its dynamism will see to that.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I have no time.
In 2007, the peoples of Scotland and England will celebrate 300 years of pooled sovereignty and joint nationhood. In 2107, when you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are long gone, our successors will, I believe, still be here, still debating the nature of that peculiar and unique relationship which binds our two nations together, still marvelling at what it has achieved; and, yes, there will still be some on the Opposition Benches questioning its chances of survival.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: All I can say after that is that Rabbie Burns must have been burlin' in his grave when he heard himself being wheeled out in defence of the Union by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who would surely qualify for inclusion in "a parcel o' rogues in a nation".
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who initiated the debate. It is the first opportunity that the House has had since the general election to debate the Scottish constitutional question and the lack of democracy in Scotland.
I remind Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who tried to talk up the Tories' election result in Scotland at the general election, that they were hammered. They managed the magnificent feat of getting a quarter of Scottish voters to support them. If that is their measure of success, they surely have low horizons and expectations—or perhaps they are trying to rewrite history.
If we believe recent opinion polls, Tory support has dwindled to a mere 16 per cent. of the Scottish electorate. There is no doubt that Scotland is being governed by an unrepresentative minority clique. Not only were the Tories rejected by three quarters of the people of Scotland at the previous general election, but the people of Scotland gave the positive message that they voted for parties committed to the setting up of a Scottish parliament.
The denial of that parliament by the Government means a continuation of the democratic deficit in Scotland, which is the only country with its own legal system and laws, but no legislature to pass those laws.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that all the other parties in Scotland fought the election on the basis that they wanted a separate Scottish parliament. Does he not accept that one party—the Scottish National party—stood for election on one issue alone: the establishment of a self-ruling Scotland with no Westminster connection? Labour and the Liberal Democrats stood for,a parliament within the Union—a Scottish assembly.

Mr. Canavan: Three quarters of the Scottish people voted for parties committed in principle to the establishment of a Scottish parliament. There are always differences of opinion within those parties about the exact powers that such a parliament should have, and about its relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the rest of the world; but the best solution to that problem is contained in the motion, which refers to "a multi-option referendum". Let the people decide.
If the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) believes in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, he should support me on that. The truth is that there is more democracy in Hong Kong than in Scotland; soon, there will probably be more democracy in Northern Ireland. Surely no hon. Member can defend that.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: When asked by a South American business man why the Scots were so popular all over the world, I replied, "It is because we have the great good fortune to be the only nation that does not have the misfortune to have a Government."

Mr. Canavan: I am surprised that a distinguished Scottish lawyer does not support my argument. Surely it is a disgrace that Scotland, which has its own legal system and its own body of law, has no legislature to pass that law. At present, bits and pieces are incorporated in English Acts, preventing the proper scrutiny and quality of legislation that the Scottish people deserve.
Sadly, the only Government response on constitutional questions since the general election has been the "taking stock" exercise, which has turned out to be a bit of a farce. Even the pussyfooting proposals in the White Paper have been delayed. Surely it is not enough to respond to the wishes of the people of Scotland by saying, "Oh, well, we shall have more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland"; that is almost as relevant as saying, "We shall shift the Committee to Timbuktu."
The Scottish Grand Committee is basically a talking shop. I am not saying that it is a completely useless talking shop, but it has no real executive or legislative powers. If the Government had wanted to give it such powers, they would have referred the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to it, and let all the elected representatives of the people of Scotland decide the future of the legislation, rather than drafting English Members on to the Committee to preserve the Government's majority.
The Bill threatens to destroy what is left of local democracy in Scotland. It has been rightly described as the most blatant piece of gerrymandering in the history of Scottish local government—and very expensive at that: the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has estimated the

cost at some £720 million. If passed, it will also have serious consequences for important services such as social work and education; it aims to remove the statutory responsibility to employ qualified directors of education, qualified social workers and committees dealing with those subjects.
I assume that the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for education in Scotland will speak at some point. I hope that he will pay careful attention to what I am about to say. The Bill interferes with the traditional catchment areas of many schools, thus infringing what is supposed to be one of the basic tenets of democracy, in which the Government claim to believe—parents' right to send their children to the school of their choice.
Let me take a couple of examples from my area. St. Modan's and St. Mungo's high schools are the only two Catholic high schools in Central region; some of my constituents choose to send their children to both schools. Both have rolls of about 800 pupils: St. Modan's is in Stirling, St. Mungo's in Falkirk.
If the Government's proposals for local boundary changes proceed, both schools will be in different local education authority areas. At present, about 60 per cent. of St. Modan's pupils travel from outwith Stirling district, which would be conterminous with one of the proposed new LEA areas. It may lose more than half its pupils, unless the pupils cross the LEA boundary—which they are unlikely to do unless the Government guarantee parents free transport, and also guarantee that the new LEA will not be burdened with extra costs.
So far, the Minister has refused to give any such guarantees, despite representations from hon. Members—including me—from the Scottish Catholic Education Commission and from the Scottish hierarchy. I hope that he will reply tonight, and that he will answer all the parents in Scotland whose right to choice will be severely curtailed, if not obliterated, by the Bill. It seems that the Government either do not fully realise the consequences of their proposed legislation, or are hellbent on wrecking their children's educational opportunities, destroying parental choice and eroding what is left of Scottish local democracy.
The Bill would also take power from elected representatives by creating up to 100 more quangos. That would make matters worse rather than better. I understand that Scotland now has 5,000 quango members; after the proposed reorganisation, there will be only 1,200 elected local government members—less than a quarter of the number of quango members. The quangos will be responsible for more public expenditure than the elected council members.
I am worried about more than the denial of democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, the Government are creating a system that is wide open to abuse and corruption. Last week, a conference of the west of Scotland Conservatives took place in Renfrew. The Minister and his colleagues may not take everything that I say as gospel truth; let us hear what other members of his party said and decided.
The majority agreed with the statement:
Quangos are a gravy train for Tory supporters",
and an overwhelming majority agreed that there were
too many quangos in Scotland".
The same report said that leading Tories—including the chairman of the Scottish Tory party, Sir Michael Hirst—were surprised at the votes that took place. No


wonder Sir Michael was surprised—he would not recognise democracy if it were speared in his eyeballs. He was rejected by the voters of Strathkelvin in 1987, to reappear with his knighthood and patronage appointment as chairman of the Scottish Tories.
Given the placemen in certain posts, that seems to be the career pattern for Scottish Tories. Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Minister with responsibilities for health and home affairs in Scotland, was rejected by the voters of Angus in 1987. Lord Mackay was rejected by the voters of Argyll, then turned up as a Minister with responsibility for transport.
Last weekend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury claimed in front of a student audience that foreigners are in the business of buying academic qualifications and indulging in corrupt practices. If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for corruption opportunities, he need look no further than all the quangos that were created and the many more that are being formed.
From the membership of those quangos, it seems that, to be virtually assured a seat on at least one of them, one has to buy not an A-level or university degree but only a Tory party card. That is what it is—jobs for the boys. That abuse of party power is even worse than that practised by many of the Stalinist regimes that once existed in eastern Europe.

Mr. McAllion: Did my hon. Friend read in the Scottish press that, because of the dearth of talent among members of the Tory Front Bench, there is every likelihood that Lord Mackay will be appointed Secretary of State for Scotland—even though he was not elected with a single vote cast anywhere in Scotland?

Mr. Canavan: I did, and I was appalled. I wondered whether the day will come when the Secretary of State for Scotland, instead of answering questions at the Dispatch Box, will have to be summoned to the Bar of the House because he has not been elected by even one constituency in Scotland. How will that go in terms of accountability? Scotland is ruled—or rather, misruled—by a party which has only minority support, and which has no mandate from the people of Scotland.
I conclude with this warning. The Government cannot run away from the people of Scotland for ever. This year, they will receive two blunt messages. They will get a double whammy in the forthcoming local and European Parliament elections. The people of Scotland are fed up with, and can see through, the Government, and their verdict will be given on a Government who have an increasingly strong stench of corruption—which is symptomatic of terminal decline.
If the people of Scotland can accelerate that decline through the ballot box, so much the better. The sooner that we can be rid of this Government, the better for the people of Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): rose—

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair has a responsibility, particularly in debates such as this, to protect minorities in the House that represent close to one quarter of the Scottish vote. What is

the argument for independence that the House is unwilling or unable to debate? When such points of view are excluded from debate, does that not reinforce the strong view that is held in Scotland—far beyond the ranks of the Scottish National party—that the House, its processes and procedures are a conspiracy against Scottish public interest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The Chair is interested not in the personal views of any party, but in fairness in terms of the number of times that right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to debates.

Mrs. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interests of fairness, surely all constitutional parties represented in the House should have been given an opportunity to express their views in this debate. My hon. Friend, who has been present for the entire debate, was not afforded that opportunity. Meanwhile, a party that represents a minority viewpoint in Scotland was represented by several speakers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members know full well that the number of times that they have contributed in the past determines to some extent how often they are called subsequently. The debate has not yet finished, so who knows who may yet contribute to it? I call the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I entered Parliament on the same day. The only difference between us at that time was that he sat on this side of the House and I sat on the other. The hon. Gentleman has lost none of his characteristic vigour and vitality, and I shall seek to answer his points.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister should get on with it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will, and I shall deal now with the hon. Gentleman's points.
The Labour party's claim that the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill will create 100 new quangos is the purest fantasy. The Bill provides for a maximum of seven non-departmental public bodies, plus any necessary residuary bodies. They are the three new water companies, customers council, recorders administration, staff commission and property commission. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's nerve in talking about quangos. The last Labour Government presided over many more. In 1979, there were 84 executive quangos in Scotland, which this Government have almost halved to 47. I have only to look at Labour's election manifesto to see proposals to establish 17 new quangos. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West should make the sternest representation to members of his own Front Bench because they are not going along with his views.

Mr. McLeish: Surely to goodness the Minister does not believe the Secretary of State's speeches when he reads them. Does he agree that Scotland currently has 163 quangos and not the number claimed by the Secretary of State? What about expenditure levels of nearly £7 billion? I am giving the Secretary of State, who is in his place, an opportunity to give the Minister the benefit of his advice. It is appalling that the Minister should attempt to distort the argument by giving completely false figures.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is hoist by his own petard. The number of advisory bodies has also reduced during this Parliament. It is a plain and unmistakable fact that there were 84 executive quangos under the last Labour Government in 1979, but there are only 47 today. I remind the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) of the new quangos that Labour proposes to establish. It wants a cultural education committee, human rights commission, national investment bank, judicial appointments and training commission, consumer protection commission, wages council and various other bodies. Labour's 1993 conference passed motions endorsing the establishment of various bodies such as a training agency, national investment bank and regional development agencies—the list goes on and on. Yet Labour Members have the nerve to criticise the Government when we have reduced the number of quangos.
I did not intend to begin with that point, but as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East told me to get on with it, it was only fair to answer his key point. He is wrong—the Government have reduced the number of quangos in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman's representations should be directed at his own leader and members of his own Front Bench. I will say to the credit of the hon. Gentleman that he has no more hesitation in voting against his own side than against us.

Mr. Kynoch: Has my hon. Friend considered that the Opposition might have withdrawn all those conference pledges on increasing the number of quangos, just as they withdrew all their pledges on spending?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall examine Labour's future actions with the greatest care. We noted what was said this afternoon, and it was not consistent with the line taken at Labour's national conferences or with its proposals for a number of new quangos.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked a significant question about local government being extended to quangos. I confirm to him that the White Paper published last July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for public service and science, proposed a code of practice for access to Government information. It will be implemented in April not only for Government Departments but for quangos within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That is undoubtedly a step forward. The principles of the code will be adopted by other non-departmental public bodies. There will be a similar code of practice for access to information about the national health service.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister confirm this evening in the House that he will set up a register of directors' interests which will be tough and will have an open regulatory regime to ensure that the wilful neglect of public funds that is taking place at present is stamped out?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that Scottish Enterprise is considering that matter. It is right that appropriate rules and procedures should be drawn up in that connection, as they are for the House of Commons.

Mrs. Ewing: I do not want to interfere in the dispute between what is probably the largest quango in Scotland, namely, the official Opposition and the Minister. Will the Minister confirm that, in a debate in the House in which the constitutional issue has been discussed, the Scottish

National party, which is the driving force and the powerhouse on the constitutional issue, has been denied the opportunity to participate? As a member of the legal profession in Scotland, does he agree that there is a need to ensure that there is accountability between the various organisations in Scotland and that we have been denied the accountability of putting on record our viewpoint?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A considerable amount of parliamentary time was taken up last week as a result of the parliamentary disruption engaged in by the Scottish National party. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot engage in disruption and take up a great deal of parliamentary time and then complain that they are not given enough time. The fact remains—

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister seems to suggest that there is some connection between the SNP not being called in the debate today and events last week. Through the prerogative of the Chair, can you confirm that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not true.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful for that confirmation. There is no question but that the SNP is dealt with fairly in terms of parliamentary time.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make that connection? It is a simple point of order. It is a simple question, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will answer it. No.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to address the Chair with one's hands in one's pockets?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sadly, it is.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have to consider the motion against the back drop of history. The Act of Union represented a partnership of willing partners and we believe that it is the world's best example—

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of your clear ruling on the subject, will you ask the Minister to withdraw his clear allegation made on the Floor of the House that we were denied an opportunity to speak in today's debate because of events last week?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should make it clear that Madam Speaker has total responsibility. We who share the responsibility with her are the ones who decide who may or may not be called in any debate. The previous behaviour of hon. Members has no relationship with whether they are called on a subsequent day. I hope that that is clear. If anyone else suggests anything to the contrary, he is wrong. I hope that that is clear.
With the greatest respect, I do not think that the Minister made any allegation. He may have felt that there had been some such response, but I have made the ruling clear. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may yet catch my eye. He knows what time the debate ends. I do not know how long the Minister's speech will be.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To return to the matter of quangos, far from believing that all quangos should be dismantled, we believe that they have a legitimate purpose in the diffusion of power. I give one


example. The chairman and non-executive directors of such bodies are accountable in several ways not only to the law of the land but, through the citizens charter, to the people whom they serve. They are accountable to their sponsoring Secretary of State for their stewardship, and through him to Parliament. There is a parallel chain of accountability for the use of resources. It starts with the chief executive of the body and ends with the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. That is consistent with the best traditions of democracy and parliamentary tradition.
If citizens know what they are entitled to expect from public services, as they will be under the citizens charter, and are given proper avenues of complaint if they do not receive it, they are well placed to call that body to account immediately. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made the point well in that connection.
I confirm that we are determined that women in particular should be considered for more public appointments.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: So long as they have a Tory party card.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: They will be appointed on merit. Our approach is sensible and can be delivered. The proportion of women who hold appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already 40 per cent. That is one of the highest of any Government Department. However, we are not complacent and we want to improve on the figure. We are always keen to learn about women and men of ability and experience who would like to make a further contribution to life in Scotland.
The issue of local government reform was raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) was right to say that the purpose of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was not to dismantle democracy. Its purpose is to avoid excessive duplication. For example, there are now two sets of councillors, two sets of headquarters and two sets of officials. It makes sense to co-ordinate housing, social work, education, sport and similar functions.
I shall bear in mind the point made by the hon, Member for Falkirk, West.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am answering the hon. Gentleman. The point that he raised is covered by clause 32 of the Bill. We shall reach it some time. We shall debate it thoroughly and I shall bear in mind the point that he made.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way. There will be plenty of opportunity to debate the matter at length in Committee. I am sure that it will be discussed further when the Bill returns to the House if satisfaction is not obtained at that time.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central made proposals for a multi-referendum. I recall when I was a new Member asking Michael Foot, the then Leader of the House, to consider a referendum. He replied that a referendum was not the way to proceed. He subsequently changed his mind

because a referendum appeared to be the only way to get the Scotland Bill on the statute book. A referendum with vague, general propositions tends to be of little value. It would be necessary to put before the electors a clear proposition for a particular policy, spelling out in detail what was involved. That is precisely what was done in 1979. When faced with a clear proposal, less than one third of the Scottish electorate voted in favour of change and the results were inconclusive.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have many points to answer.
I want to answer the charges made about the White Paper "Taking Stock". In 1926, it was a Tory Government who created the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. In 1939, a Conservative Government brought the Scottish Office to St Andrew's House in Edinburgh. The White Paper "Taking Stock" focuses on several matters. Scotland already receives a considerable share of parliamentary time. Some 60 Scottish Bills have been enacted in the past 10 years. In addition, when Scots legislation is incorporated in United Kingdom Bills which apply to Britain or the United Kingdom, the greatest care is taken to ensure that, both in terms of policy and in the drafting of the legislation, an approach appropriate to Scotland is taken. There have been discussions through the usual channels about the matter. Agreement has been reached and my right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the verbose motion flows from a concept about the undemocratic power and influence of transnational and multinational companies in Scotland's economy. Two such companies have just come to Scotland and provided 2,000 jobs. We have obtained domination of the world by the same methods. What would have happened to Scotland if the narrow-minded idiocy being displayed had prevented us from investing in other countries, and prevented other countries from investing in ours?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer conclusively—multinational companies have had a good record. Last year, 79,000 people were employed in overseas-owned manufacturing units in Scotland, representing almost 25 per cent. of manufacturing jobs. It has been reported that gross wages and salaries per employee were 20 per cent. higher.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Minister agree that the real damage done to Scotland involves the loss of control of Scottish companies? Is he aware that the last steelworks in Scotland, the Craigneuk works at Motherwell, is closing today, with immediate redundances? Will the Government do anything to try to find a buyer for it as a going concern?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It does not belong to the Scottish Office to sell, but strenuous efforts are being made by the local enterprise company. It is important that its efforts are successful. Mossend steel works, which is not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is due to open shortly, creating many hundreds of jobs.

Mr. Gallie: Does not my hon. Friend think it shameful that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not distance himself from the insulting motion on inward investment? Does he not agree that it is a condemnation of the Labour party's commitment to jobs in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Fife, Central has been thoroughly unrealistic—inward investment has played a key role in creating and sustaining employment in Scotland.

Mr. McLeish: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way as I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was severely attacked in the intervention of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), which was answered by the Minister. When my hon. Friend tried to intervene to clarify the position, he was arrogantly brushed aside by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Chair and is a matter for debating—

Mr. Norman Hogg: It was a good point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was a bad point.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Several hon. Members raised the subject of "Taking Stock". Responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council will transfer to the Secretary of State, as will various other responsibilities, such as training, through the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. There have already been some impressive results. In Scotland, more than half the Scottish work force are qualified to at least Scottish vocational qualification level three, compared to 30 per cent. south of the border. Responsibility for the highlands and islands airports will be transferred to the Secretary of State, which makes sense.
We are giving high priority to ensuring that Scotland is right at the heart of Europe. That is why we set up Scottish Trade International. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was successful in persuading the Europeans that Scotland should host Europartenariat. Some 350 companies exhibited to similar companies from nearly 50 countries, and more than 5,000 meetings with Scottish companies were held over the two-day event. Scottish Trade International will be carrying out a follow-up exercise to ensure that the participants have all the advice and information that they need to pursue the deals that they made. That has been good for Scotland. On the issue of Scottish Office visibility, not only have we opened up access to more information, but we have established telephone inquiry links and 22 information points, and information leaflets will be made available.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) about the success of the national health service trusts. The benefits of that policy are already becoming apparent, with more patients being treated, improved facilities and services specifically adapted to particular needs.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East demanded a Scots parliament. The Conservative stand on that issue is

unrepentant, and is incorrigibly and unequivocally Unionist. At the last election, we stood full square on that platform. Much to the dismay of pollsters, pundits and bookies, we were the only party in Scotland to increase our share of the vote and our representation in the House. Only one Labour seat in Britain was taken by the Tories in the last general election: that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. That was due to his vigorous and strong Unionist stand.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this moment.
It is right to consider the role of the Secretary of State. If the motion were implemented, he would be stripped of resources, without the power to legislate and without the backing of his Department. He would rapidly become a cypher and would be unlikely to retain his position in the Cabinet. If he were to lose his place in the Cabinet, it would be bad for Scotland in the United Kingdom Parliament, and Scotland's influence would be correspondingly reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to consider the number of Scots in the Cabinet. There are four—the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Transport and for Defence, and the Lord Chancellor. Could that number be maintained if a Scots parliament were established? I am far from certain that it could.
Before the last election, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that once there was a Scottish parliament that handled health issues in Scotland, it would be impossible for him to be a Minister for health in England. There are also concerns about the number of Scottish Members in the House. There are now 72 Scottish Members. If calculated on the basis of the population, the number should be 57. Would it be reasonable to maintain the present numbers if a separate Scots parliament covering most aspects of Scottish public affairs were established? If we followed the example of Stormont, we would have only 40 Scottish Members. I would not want to see the number of Scots represented in the House reduced as that would be contrary to Scotland's interest, as would the elimination of the office of Secretary of State.
Implicit in the motion is the fact that the parliament would raise taxes. The Scots would then be the most heavily taxed people in the United Kingdom. It would be unreasonable to make the rest of Britain pay for an extra tier of Government in Scotland without comparable parliaments all over England. The difficulty of the policy of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is that the rest of Britain does not want regional parliaments all over England, and certainly not throughout Wales. Tax-raising powers would constitute an extra burden on Scottish industry.
There was a report in The Scotsman on 19 August 1974 which stated:
Mr. John Smith, MP for North Lanark, claimed that members of the party who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of the Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster were being dishonest.
I do not wish to see the role of the Secretary of State eliminated, and I do not want the loss of employment that would go with the creation of another parliament. I do not want endless conflict between rival parliaments, which the motion would doubtless entail.
I quote the words of a distinguished parliamentarian, who said:
Feelings of pride in one's land and one's culture are both respectable and desirable, but they are perfectly compatible with membership of a somewhat wider political family: to sacrifice benefits accrued over 270 years in order to gratify confused and ephemeral political ambitions would be tragic and unforgivably foolish.
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his book "Devolution: the end of Britain?" I endorse them today.
Let us remember our common heritage with the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us strengthen those links and not throw away the benefit of hundreds of years of unity. We have an inescapable duty to oppose the motion. The Union has brought with it great benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes it appears that the people of Scotland are not fully aware of those benefits. Identifiable public expenditure per head is 15 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. To look at it another way, Scotland represents some 8·9 per cent. of the population—

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

European Community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

PARENTAL LEAVE

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Employment on 7th October 1993 and 7th December 1993, relating to parental and family leave, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Employment on 7th October 1993 and 11th November 1993, relating to non-standard employment; endorses the Government's view that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to the effects on job creation, to the principle of subsidiarity, and to the diversity of national traditions and practices; shares the Government's view that the need for Community legislation on parental leave and leave for family reasons and associated social protection provisions has not been demonstrated; supports the Government's view that it should not accept proposals which would increase the cost of employing part-time and temporary workers and reduce the number of jobs available; and endorses the Government's view that terms and conditions of employment are best agreed directly by the parties concerned without outside interference.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 99.

Division No. 108]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Cheryl


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey



Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)






Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jamieson, David


Dafis, Cynog
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John





McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McMaster, Gordon
Salmond, Alex


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walley, Joan


O'Hara, Edward
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Andrew


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Derek Enright and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Raynsford, Nick



Rendel, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

LANDFILL OF WASTE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5953/91 and 7506/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th January 1994, relating to the landfill of waste; endorses the Government's view that the proposal is unnecessarily detailed and prescriptive and does not take sufficient account of the principle of subsidiarity which is enshrined in the Treaty of European Union; welcomes the Government's intention to press for the removal of a number of the more detailed provisions now that it is clear that other Member States wish to take forward the Directive; supports the Government's view that carefully controlled co-disposal is an environmentally sound practice, the banning of which in the United Kingdom would be detrimental to the environment and would lead to significantly increased disposal costs for certain types of industrial waste; and endorses the Government's intention to seek a common position in Council which would allow those countries who practise controlled co-disposal to continue to do so.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 103.

Division No. 109]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Atkins, Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)






Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Merchant, Piers


Faber, David
Mills, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Monro, Sir Hector


Fishburn, Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Gardiner, Sir George
Ottaway, Richard


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Paice, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gorst, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Richards, Rod


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Riddick, Graham


Hague, William
Robathan, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hannam, Sir John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Harris, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heald, Oliver
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hendry, Charles
Sims, Roger


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Speed, Sir Keith


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Jack, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thomason, Roy


Key, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter



Kirkhope, Timothy
Trend, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Walden, George


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Knox, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waterson, Nigel


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wells, Bowen


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Whittingdale, John


Legg, Barry
Widdecombe, Ann


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Lidington, David
Willetts, David


Lightbown, David
Wilshire, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Luff, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacKay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Sydney Chapman, and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Maitland, Lady Olga





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Boyes, Roland
Coffey, Ann





Corston, Ms Jean
McCartney, Ian


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cox, Tom
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mandelson, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davidson, Ian
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Enright, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Garrett, John
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Raynsford, Nick


Gerrard, Neil
Rendel, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gunnell, John
Salmond, Alex


Hall, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Clare


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Tyler, Paul


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Walley, Joan


Johnston, Sir Russell
Watson, Mike


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Kirkwood, Archy



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Michael Connarty.


Lynne, Ms Liz



McAllion. John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the last debate you ruled from the Chair, quite clearly and effectively, that who is called during the course of a debate is a matter for those who represent Madam Speaker in the Chair, and that decisions are taken on the basis of fairness. We accept that ruling. However, during the debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State clearly stated that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was not being called because of events that happened last week. That seems to me to have been a direct threat to the constitutional rights of Back Benchers to speak out on behalf of their constituents or on behalf of their nation.
If the records show that those were the comments of the Minister—we can look at both written and oral evidence of the debate—will the Minister be asked to withdraw those comments in the interests of fairness, which you spelled out so clearly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that we read the Hansard—

Mrs. Ewing: And the recordings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that we read the Hansard recordings tomorrow.

Mrs. Ewing: And watch the video.

Sustainable Development (Rio Summit)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

[Relevant documents: The First Report of the Environment Committee of Session 1992–93 on Forestry and the Environment (House of Commons Paper, 1992–93, No. 257) and the Government's Response thereto (Cm. 2259).]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): On 25 January, the Government presented to Parliament four exceptional documents. Each of those was presented by no fewer than 16 members of the Cabinet, including my right hon. Friends with responsibilities ranging over economic and environmental protection. Among them were Trade and Industry, Agriculture and Fisheries, the Exchequer, Health, Defence, Heritage, Science, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and of course the Foreign Office with its interest in overseas development. They raise issues with the widest possible implications, for the principles set out in those papers must increasingly underpin Government policies across the board.
Unfortunately, that concern goes under a typically unlovely 20th century name: sustainable development. The term was, as one might imagine, coined by a committee, albeit a distinguished international one. The Brundtland commission in 1987 described sustainable development in this carefully defined prose:
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
I prefer to say that we are working for economic growth without cheating on our children.
We must continually stress the two sides of that equation: economic development and environmental protection. Sustainable development is not anti-growth. Indeed, it cannot be achieved except through growth. It cannot be achieved except through the maintenance of a prosperous economy. It depends on the encouragement of profitable, competitive, world-class industries. For modern demands for high standards of living will not abate; they are bound to continue to increase. It is successful private enterprise which will find new ways of meeting those demands in an increasingly sustainable manner.
It is profitable companies which will develop new solutions to environmental problems—problems such as air pollution. It is profitable companies which are already selling the environmentally sound processes throughout the world, processes which have been developed here in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the subject of profitable companies, can the right hon. Gentleman resolve for me what seems to be one of the central dilemmas of the present system—capitalist or whatever one calls it—that companies have limited liability and therefore have no responsibility in the way in which they are accountable to their shareholders for the future? How can the Government find a way of building in individual responsibility for companies for the future and square that with the companies' accountability to their shareholders and their limited liability?

Mr. Gummer: The issue of environmental liability is important and it is being considered with great care in the

European Union. I look for the type of limited liability that is based on the duty of companies to do at any given time what any knowledgeable individual should do in pursuing policies that do not harm the environment or the future of our children.
There are arguments about how one draws that line. I would be very leery of saying to a company that it should know more about the environment than anyone else knows about it at a particular moment. The idea of insisting upon hindsight would be very dangerous, but I believe that we should be able to find a sensible answer. That is what the European Union is doing—trying to find the right answer.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In that case, does the Secretary of State agree with and totally support the European directive that made it a requirement for companies undertaking major developments to carry out a properly worked out and costed environmental impact assessment? Alternatively, does he feel that it is sufficient to leave that as a voluntary set-up?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady knows that I have been pressing hard for a whole range of environmental assessments, not least the concept of environmental audits as part and parcel of the normal activity of major and medium-sized businesses. She knows my views on those matters. There are some real problems with the details of the directive which are not to do with the issues that unite us, so I cannot say that I agree with every jot and tittle. I believe that we must deal with the whole question of environmental liability in a sensible way which will meet the proper concerns of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) but will not lay on the shoulders of business impossible demands. We cannot expect business to have knowledge of something that is not discovered until some time afterwards. I look to a European answer which may be more in tune with our two requirements than is the case with answers suggested in other parts of the world.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: How does the Secretary of State square his statement with the activities of Fisons, a private company which is mining peat on Thorn and Hatfield moors in my constituency? It is ripping that lowland peat bog to pieces although it is important internationally. There has been a voluntary agreement between English Nature and Fisons since January 1992, yet it has still not been signed. I have pursued the matter since I was elected to the House and I can get no sensible answers. This site and other lowland peat bogs are very important, as most people are aware. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government intend to do to get the agreement signed and what they intend to do further to protect lowland peat bogs?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I spent a great deal of time being particularly interested in the alternatives to peat. That is an issue which, no doubt, unites us. I shall be perfectly happy to look at the details if the hon. Gentleman gives them to me. He may then get sensible answers, if that is what he seeks. I will do my best and see what needs to be done. I am sure that he does not want me to comment on the particular details of the matter here, although I am happy to look at it and to see what we can do.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Can the Secretary of State square his statement about not cheating our children with his decision on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, which was based on a planning inquiry held some 15 years ago? The available evidence was not published. Surely that is not just cheating our children, but cheating our grandchildren's grandchildren.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has not spent the time that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spent in going through the details and coming to our conclusion. The case is now before the courts. The decision taken by me and my right hon. Friend was entirely consonant with my belief about not cheating our children. The hon. Gentleman must learn soon that there are choices to be made and that those choices have to be made after the most detailed discovery and discussion of what the facts are. That is what I did and I stand by it.
If we are to have the sustainable development that we want, we need profitable companies which can most afford to invest in new plant and cleaner technology. A thriving private sector will invest in the research and development that is needed to identify and understand the solutions to our environmental problems. Only from a thriving economy can we draw the resources that we need to continue to expand the health services, to invest in education, to conserve and enhance our landscape and to build our heritage—in short, to meet the proper aspirations of our people.
I start with that clear message because I believe that sustainable development must be woven into our life styles. It must not become an excuse for a puritanical belief that life must be miserable for it to be sustainable. The words "sustainable" and "development" must be kept together. It is the phenomenal success of industry over the generations which has contributed to many of the environmental problems today. It is only through business—better business—that any real solutions can be found. That is an essential part of the discovery of solutions to the problems that we face.
The British, who invented the industrial means of production, have long experience of the harm that can be done. That was best expressed in a poem by Hopkins, in which he wrote:
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
Hopkins expressed his anguish at seeing the destruction and loss from industry—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has not looked at the poem recently. If he looks at it carefully, he will see that it contains a number of the demands for sustainable development that we are addressing this evening. Hopkins also possessed the vision that we need—the vision of all that remains, of all that is fundamental and of all that can be preserved. It is on that preservation and on that seeking to pass on our heritage to the next generation that the sustainable part of sustainable development depends.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: We should get something clear at the beginning of our debate. The Secretary of State seems to identify development with sustainable growth. Does he see growth to satisfy all human aspirations as being a continual and

everlasting process? Does he believe that, if there is a time when all reasonable human aspirations have been satisfied, it will be unreasonable to expect continuing economic growth?

Mr. Gummer: I can only point to a quotation that I used in my introduction to the document on sustainable development, which is the sensible comment made by Newman that growth is the only evidence of life. I find it difficult to conceive of a society in decline in which it is worth living. There is no known example of a period of flowering of culture and science that is also a period of economic decline. Culture and science flower at a time of economic expansion. That is a fact of history and it is one explanation why the socialist societies did not produce the scientific and cultural results that one would have expected over the years. Marxism developed a period of permanent economic decline.
I look to a society that grows. A society in decline cannot meet the reasonable demands of a civilisation in which human beings expect each year to find new ways in which to express themselves and to grow. I have no objection to that. Growth must happen in a sustainable way. It is only those who are so saddened that they cannot imagine sustainable growth whom we should fear. Those people want to use the admirable concept of sustainable development as a means of imposing on the nation their views about the restrictions that should be placed on the spirit of man. I find that another excuse for a sort of puritanism which, I hope, we shall have grown out of.
We can take pride in the United Kingdom's part in the Rio earth summit. Our environment strategy of 1990 meant that we were well placed to call on other nations to plan comprehensive strategies. We, ahead of most, had done so. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce his firm intention of attending the summit, which helped to ensure that other prominent Heads of Government took the plunge. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend launched the Darwin initiative and the technology transfer project. He also announced our sponsorship of the "Partnerships for Change" conference.
Those initiatives have made a real contribution and we should emphasise the nature of that contribution. They have made clear our commitment to the need for a global realisation of sustainable development. Britain was committing itself to partnership and to an understanding that we in the developed countries have a special responsibility to help other nations meet their commitments. The solution has to be global, but it will not be achieved unless the partnership is universally accepted.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question of which I gave his office notice? If there is to be a global solution, why does not the biodiversity action plan extend to the British Indian ocean territories of Chagos Archipelago, Tristan da Cunha and St. Helena, which are fantastically rich in biodiversity? If the Government are setting an example, why does not their biodiversity policy extend to the outposts of empire?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of that question. I have to admit that it would have been more difficult to answer if he had not done so.
At the time, there were reasons that made it difficult to put those places in the same category as the other. dependent territories, but I am seeing whether we can overcome the problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman


that there is particular biodiversity in those places, as there is in many countries mentioned in the biodiversity document. He points to the fact that the demands of sustainable development, in its widest sense, will be met only by a global solution. I shall be happy to write to him about my researches.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the global solution; the documents deserve everyone's support. Many people, however, believe that world population growth has a fundamental role to play. Indeed, in reply to the debate on the earth summit last year, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that population growth was causing considerable environmental problems. Will my right hon. Friend note that it is a matter of regret that population and planning takes up only one word in one line of the four documents? Might not it be expanded in the future?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that we could discuss that subject for a long time. One of the problems is that what has been most damaging in many countries is not population growth but the movement of the population into urban centres from the countryside. Sometimes, people treat the issue too simplistically. In Latin America, for example, the population expressed as persons per square mile is not very high, but the number of people who have crammed into urban areas in the past 25 years, denuding the countryside, is high. The problem is complex and difficult, and it is devastating the environment. I agree that the matter should be thoroughly discussed, but it needs to be discussed on a much wider basis than only population control.

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend must accept that world population is growing at the rate of 10,000 every 55 minutes, which is not insignificant. What better opportunity is there to discuss the problem than during this debate on the documents?

Mr. Gummer: The documents' specific purpose is to deal with a number of other issues. I am not speaking for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that, if my hon. Friend wishes to do so, it will be in order to discuss population growth as part of sustainable development.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not it true that every new mouth born in the world has to be fed but it comes with a pair of hands and a brain? It is the sum total of human creativity and energy which has made the world a better place in which to live for the majority of people.

Mr. Gummer: I am carefully trying to avoid the type of discussion that would divide hon. Members in a different way from which we are usually divided. I believe that human beings have an individual validity. That leads me to be extremely careful about the promotion of certain methods to deal with sustainable development, but that is better left for another debate. I am pleased that, on such a subject, my hon. Friend and I are on the same side.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I liked the right hon. Gentleman's redefinition of cheating children. How does the Government's policy on North sea oil and gas fit with their concept of sustainable development? Does not the dash for gas cheat our children?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think so. If we did not make the changes, the possibility of meeting targets on carbon and achieving a cleaner environment would be much reduced. It would not be reasonable to say that the Government's policy does not make a real contribution towards sustainable development.

Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I must get a little further into my speech before I give way to my hon. Friend.
Our proposals were designed to underline the commitment of the United Kingdom to a global partnership with the rest of the world. As a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am aware of the considerable part that is being played by the trustees of Kew, who are helping nations that would otherwise not have the ability or scientific base to provide the information that they need to begin their sustainable development programmes.
On his return from Rio, it was again the Prime Minister at the Lisbon and Munich summits who persuaded other European Union and G7 Heads of Government to undertake to produce plans for sustainable development. Since then, the United Kingdom has secured election to the newly established United Nations commission on sustainable development. The United Kingdom is one of the first to produce the promised sustainable development strategy and the first to publish a programme under the climate change convention.
That sustained commitment shows the Government's seriousness about building for our long-term future. I know that our aspirations are widely shared.
We need to show in all that we do the recognition that it is only by a world partnership that we can achieve our aims. My predecessor built a good relationship between the United Kingdom and India and, through that, between the north and the south. We have expanded that and there are now many lines of communication between the south and member states of the European Union. I hope that, together, we can carry that policy forward.
One of the remarkable achievements of last year's meeting in New York was that the suspicion between north and south was considerably allayed and many of our previous arguments were resolved. That is a helpful development and we shall seek to extend it in meetings in Geneva and again in New York. I believe that the Indian Minister will seek to do much the same at a meeting in Agra, which could do much to break down the sensitivities of new nations, which feel that it is hard for them to present such documents, because they may be criticised by older nations. We have accepted the principle that we should be prepared to criticise each other, which is a major breakthrough, in order to achieve the best possible answer.
It is particularly beneficial to have not only the clear commitment of the Government but the personal commitment of the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will ensure that the Labour party leader will make the same commitment. It would be good to have a statement of clear support from him. I have difficulty recalling the last time that the Leader of the Opposition made a speech or the issue, but perhaps now is the right time for him to do so. The attitudes set out in the documents must have widespread support. It is inevitable that those who are


already convinced and who are campaigning for one environmental cause or another will say that we have not gone far enough. It is right that they should goad us, but it would be wrong for us to accept their assessment without reserve. Everyone has accepted that this is the right direction and we can demonstrate that the strategy that we have set out measures up to the importance of the issue.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will not the deregulation initiative which is being promoted by the Government seriously weaken the action on environmental improvement? I know that the document says that economic instruments will be used in preference to regulations, but does the Minister agree that what should be used is that which is most effective? Will he also consider not necessarily going for economic instruments in every single case?

Mr. Gummer: I agree absolutely that we must use the most effective measures. Deregulation is not about getting rid of necessary regulations, but unnecessary ones.
The hon. Lady should ask hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who have steadfastly refused to support the fiscal measures that are necessary to deliver the carbon dioxide commitments—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Opposition. They know perfectly well that they could not deliver what is needed for carbon dioxide emissions without the fiscal measures that we have taken. The Opposition are dishonest and hypocritical if they will not stand up and say which taxes they would increase to ensure that we can reach the carbon dioxide targets.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Lady if she will tell me which taxes she would raise. If she will not tell me, she should not be talking about this part of the debate.

Mrs. Jackson: Will the Secretary of State tell us the specific targets for the reduction in carbon emissions which the Government are prepared to set by the year 2000?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is short-sighted if she does not know that. We have signed up to the international targets and we have said exactly how we will achieve them. The Labour party has refused to accept the measures that are needed to reach those targets. What is worse is that the Labour party and, I believe, the hon. Lady herself want to get rid of the electricity which is produced by nuclear power. That would mean that we would have to tax even more heavily and would have to cut even more to meet those targets.
If the hon. Lady looks at the Labour party's policy on nuclear power, she will see the problem that it presents. Nuclear power currently provides about 22 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity. If that were to be replaced, the United Kingdom's emissions of carbon dioxide would be between 6 million and 15 million tonnes of carbon higher. How would the hon. Lady deal with that? Where would she get an alternative for that? What taxes would she put up to damp down the use of energy? The hon. Lady and her party would have to spend about double what is proposed.
The trouble with the Labour party is that it is generous in its generalities and it is careful never to make any

particular promises. The hon. Lady has again betrayed the facts. The Labour party has no policy, except promising the best and promising that we can get it all without a single increase in taxation and without any disadvantage to anybody anywhere in the world; or, at least, anybody in the world who has a vote.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the hopes that were placed on wind energy are proving not to be as fruitful as was expected? Does not that form of energy have substantial environmental disadvantages?

Mr. Gummer: My constituency contains two nuclear power stations and many of the people who campaigned against the building of Sizewell B asked us to replace it with wind energy. I am interested that many of those same people are busy writing to me today to say that I should oppose any possibility of putting up a wind farm anywhere in Suffolk. I note, therefore, that there are many people who are always against everything, but who are never in favour of anything. Those people then complain if they do not have the electricity that they need to keep the old warm and to keep the hospitals and schools running.
The Opposition would be much more credible if they honourably told us which taxes the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would allow them to increase in an unforeseeable future in which they might possibly gain power. The public would respect them much more. I wish to hear which taxes the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would impose to meet the requirements in respect of which we have imposed the taxation which the hon. Gentleman now opposes. What extra taxation would the hon. Gentleman propose to cover the nuclear deficit when he removes the possibility of any nuclear use?
Perhaps the Opposition have changed their policy and they have a new policy on nuclear power.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have been generous in giving way. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell me which taxes the Opposition would want to increase. Will he tell me that?

Mr. Williams: Yes.

Mr. Gummer: Then I will give way.

Mr. Williams: The Secretary of State has talked at length about the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to justify VAT on fuel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which taxes?"] I am coming to it. He is trying to justify VAT on fuel on the basis that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Would not the Secretary of State have more credibility if he told us that the money was to be earmarked for energy efficiency schemes which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Is not the money being used to cure the public relations problems of the Government?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. That is the last refuge of—I will not say what, because it would be unparliamentary. He knows in his heart of hearts as a geologist and an expert, as he often remarks, that the policy of his party is incredible. What does he say? He says that our policy would be more


credible if we not only bring in the taxes to which the Opposition are opposed, but spend the money raised on something that the hon. Gentleman thinks is a good idea.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what we are spending the money on. There is a considerable increase in the money which is going to every pensioner, so that they can now get assistance towards the major work involved in having an energy-efficient home. We are dealing with 500,000 homes this year. The hon. Gentleman knows that, but he does not mention it.
I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on a false prospectus. He made it clear to me that he was going to tell me which taxes the Opposition were to raise. The hon. Gentleman was going to tell me how the Opposition would deal with the fact that less carbon is put into the atmosphere by nuclear energy. He did not tell us, because the Labour party does not know. If it does know, it dare not tell us.
Labour Members would then find themselves in the same position as the most dishonourable case, which is the Liberal Democrat party. The Liberal Democrats, of course, are always green in words. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of the extension of VAT to fuel and then they changed their minds. Why? They changed their minds because there was a by-election in which it was inconvenient to stand up for their principles. I note that principles in the Liberal Democrat party are convenient only as long as they are electorally sound. The party has shown the same kind of principles on green issues which it showed on the racial issue in Tower Hamlets. Whenever there is a problem that can be got out of by winning a vote, the Liberals will be there.
The party knows perfectly that it would have to tax to meet carbon dioxide requirements. Liberal Democrats are very good at saying how green they are, but they never say how they would tax. They use generalities, but they never mention facts when it comes to how it will affect somebody who might vote for them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why his party dropped the proposal for VAT on fuel.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State spoils a debate on important issues with this banter, which all hon. Members could enter into. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. He knows perfectly well that he has been entirely selective about recent political history. We did consult before the election on whether VAT was a sensible option for dealing with environmental issues. We rejected it as an option. It was not in our manifesto for the general election and it has not been in any since, because we have been persuaded by the arguments. I am sure that the message of the debate will be that if the Government consulted more widely and listened to the answers more closely, they would have a sounder policy.

Mr. Gummer: It is fascinating that the hon. Gentleman should say that, but he has not mentioned that he would introduce another tax, which would have the same effect, but which was not mentioned to the electorate. That part of the manifesto was kept very quiet. The Liberals published

all kinds of leaflets which suggested that they would manage the green goods without paying the difficult price for that.

Mr. Hughes: No, no.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman cannot say, "No, no". I have raised this issue for a simple reason: if we are to win the battle for sustainable development, we must be honest about the cost. We cannot deliver that development unless we accept that real costs are involved. The Government have committed themselves to insist upon those costs and to help those least able to pay them.
The system that we presented was much more generous than that which the Labour party suggested was the minimum necessary. We do not go for the minimum of help; perfectly rightly, we have done better than that. Does the Labour party support the necessary taxes that must be imposed? Does the Liberal party come out and say, "Yes. We would tax. This is the amount and this is how it would affect people"? Do the Liberals put that in their manifestos for by-elections? No, they do not.
I have some hope for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, because we agree about many issues, but I have no hope for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because the Liberals would have to turn back the history of 50 years if they started to tell the truth about taxation.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to talk about this issue.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to the argument.

Mr. Gummer: I will be very happy to hear the argument and no doubt we will hear in extenso—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ad nauseam."] If we deal with sustainable development, we must make sure that we do not pick out particular aspects and avoid the holistic approach that we need to take. We cannot win the battle on climate change unless we are prepared to charge the cost. That cost must be clear and we must seek to ensure that it does not fall on those who are least able to pay it. We must make the measures effective if we are to deliver the end.
There is more to it than just fiscal measures. We need to insist on the role of individuals. The Government must set a clear example, and so must the House. I am pleased that the House has decided to meet the same targets as have been set for Government offices. The House of Commons and the House of Lords will meet the 15 per cent. reduction in energy use. I met the man responsible and he is satisfied that the programme is well on course.
The Ministers in each Department responsible for green issues are also responsible for delivering the departmental targets. At the end of the period concerned, we should have achieved the 15 per cent. reduction that we need. I hope that, among other things, the temperature at which the House generally works will be lowered. I believe that it is higher than it need be.
The only way in which we can, ultimately, achieve our ends and sustain them is not only by setting an example, which we must, but by harnessing the enthusiasm, the willingness to contribute and the simple common-sense actions of countless individuals nationwide. Those small things, which everyone can do, make a huge difference to


our achievements. It is true that while every household is responsible for 7·5 tonnes of carbon going into the atmosphere, that emission could be reduced by 1 tonne if people adopted relatively small measures. Many may point the finger at each one of those measures and say that they do not seem much, but if each household, out of 20 million, were to adopt those simple measures, the difference could be enormous.
By using less central heating, by using only that amount of water that needs to be boiled for a particular function, by using energy-saving bulbs and by walking, when possible, instead of driving, a great deal could be achieved. That is why we have set an example not only by what we are doing in Government buildings and offices, but by helping pensioners to provide the insulation necessary for their homes.
Those measures represent just 30 per cent. of our target. We must consider transport, which is an important part of the equation, although it is responsible for less carbon than that produced from domestic sources. The car is perhaps the single most emancipating manufactured product yet devised. We need to retain the freedom which car owning has provided. [Laughter.] It is all right for Opposition Members to laugh, but the car has given to many people opportunities that they never had before. Those opportunites should not be laughed at. The Opposition will find that the electorate does not share their laughter, because people feel that the motor car has been and is a great force for good.
The car must be the servant, not the master. The issue is how we control the car sensibly within our society. That is why the sustainable development plan states frankly:
If people continue to exercise their choice as they are at present—and there are no other changes—the resulting traffic growth would have unacceptable consequences for both the environment and the economy of certain parts of the country—and could be very difficult to reconcile with overall sustainable development goals.
There are several approaches to solving that. One is to increase the cost of travel by road. The Government have not baulked at that responsibility, but I have not noticed enthusiasm from the Labour party to support the extra duty on petrol, over and above the cost of living, to help towards that. I have not noticed that, because it is embarrassing to support tough, necessary measures; it is much easier to claim the credit for the advantages that those measures achieve and to make generalised anti-road comments.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady will tell me that she will support that tax.

Ms Walley: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just told the House, do I take it that he and the Secretary of State for Transport intend to review the widening proposals for the M25?

Mr. Gummer: What an interesting answer. I have still not heard an answer about the tax. The Opposition do not want to answer that question. They do not want to accept the fact that they want all the easy popularity, but they do not want to meet the bill. Meeting the bill for sustainable

development points up the difference between hypocrisy and reality. I will not, of course, aim either of those words at anyone because that would be unparliamentary.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) knows perfectly well that a public inquiry is being held about the future of the M25. That is the proper way to conduct business. I am sure that she would want the public to have their say, and no doubt they will, and a decision will be made as a result.
A second solution is within our hands as individuals, because we can choose to use the car less or more sensibly. Many people already make a point of doing that and I believe that many others will do so. Technical measures can also help, such as the manufacture of cleaner motor vehicles and I pay tribute to those who have already done so much in that regard.
We can also, however, employ the land use planning system to influence the siting of new shops and offices. Where we choose to work, where we go to enjoy ourselves and where we go to shop are significant choices for our use of the car. They also make a significant impact on urban quality.
Understanding what is needed to improve the quality of cities and towns requires us to look at issues in a broader way. How people shop relates to how they use their cars. How local authorities respond influences whether businesses will invest in town centres. Good urban design demands vitality in the urban property market. That vitality flows from people's decision to shop in town centres. In turn, that depends on a positive approach to planning and managing town centres. That is a job for local authorities, because they must be imaginative in enabling things to happen. They should not say no to a substantial new development without making clear their reasons. Whenever possible, they should point to an alternative way of making provision for economic development. They must adopt a positive approach.
Local authorities must work with local people, landowners and developers to identify the right local strategy. Those strategies in local plans must take account of the national priorities set out by the Government last year in planning policy guidance note 6. That policy is intended to help to deliver town centres that serve the whole community. Those centres should provide a focus for retail development where competing businesses are near enough for shoppers to compare prices and benefits from competition. They should be places in which a series of different uses are encouraged. They would then be attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors because they would have lively restaurants, cafes, culture and entertainments, as well as shopping facilities and places for people to live.
I want us to improve the quality of our towns so that we can reduce the pressures of urban sprawl and the pressures to develop green-field sites. That means encouraging new shopping developments in locations where they can reinforce town centres—in town centres or within walking distance of them. Where they would result in an unacceptable impact on a town centre, it may be necessary to discourage development on green-field sites on the edge of cities.
I wish to mention a further development that has resulted from the document on sustainable development. Month by month, we shall have new examples of the steadily developing strategy outlined in the document. Today, the Producer Responsibility Industry Group,


representing 28 major companies in the packaging world, presented to me some new packaging proposals. I have the document in front of me. It must be considered further by both Government and industry. Businesses must decide whether to follow its recommendations or face the prospect of a much more bureaucratic scheme proposed by legislation in response to the European Union packaging directive.
The Government must also reserve their position on the plan until industry is sure that it complies with United Kingdom and European Union competition law and until appropriate authorisations have been received from the relevant competition authorities. But I have no hesitation in endorsing the way in which the industry group has approached the challenge. Recycling is a crucial part of any sensible sustainable development strategy. The plan would nearly double the recycling and recovery of packaging waste from 32 per cent. in 1993 to 58 per cent. by 2000. It would bring convenient access to recycling to 80 per cent. of homes by the end of the century, either through home collection or close-to-home bank schemes. Some 15 per cent. of households—3·5 million homes—will be covered by 1996.
The plan includes a clear commitment to expand markets for recycled materials. Having looked hard at potential markets, we believe that recycling of plastics waste is projected to increase from 5 to 16 per cent. by 2000. The plan also safeguards some of the recycling activities most seriously threatened by the impact of foreign schemes, such as United Kingdom paper collection and reprocessing. I shall want to look again at some of the detailed targets, but I believe that the plan is a major step forward.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on the Environment is midway through its inquiry into recycling. Will he confirm that the producer responsibility group document will be made available to the Select Committee before it reaches its conclusion?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to do that. It will also be discussed widely by the industry and I hope that we shall have a concerted agreement at the end.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if a Minister refers to a document in his speech, he has a duty to place a copy in the Vote Office? There is none there at present. As the Minister has referred to the document, does not he have a duty to produce it for the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Yes, that is the usual procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to place the document in the Library and the Vote Office. I apologise to the hon. Member for Denton and Redditch if he feels that I have not already done so, but I received the document only this afternoon. Once I receive full details, I shall certainly make them available to the hon. Gentleman. The document will be in the public domain—it is the group's document, not mine—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have wished me to hide the information from the House.
We should ensure, almost immediately, that the new arrangements made so happily through the Uruguay round make it clear that those policies work closely with our

environmental policies. We agreed that in Rio and, on the international stage, we contribute to work under way in OECD, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and the United Nations Environment Programme to examine the interaction between trade and environment policies. I recently had a meeting with my French, German and Spanish colleagues to see how best the European Community can contribute to that important aspect of our policy.
We have announced that the Government will put forward their policies not just for internal criticism but for outside monitoring, which is why there is a panel on sustainable development with such distinguished members. We shall also have a round table on sustainable development, whose proceedings and attitudes will be determined by its members, not laid down in advance. We are reaching out to ensure that the citizens' campaign will reach every village and town in the country, so that sustainable development becomes part of everyone's policy. That is essential if we are to achieve sustainable development.
I began my speech with the first half of a quotation from Hopkins' poem. Some hon. Members will be longing to hear the end of that poem, for at least it holds out hope of change—

Mr. George Howarth: And hope of the end of the speech.

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman says, it also holds out hope of the end of my speech.
The poem says:
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
There is much to give us hope for a real renaissance in our attitude to the environment in which we live and breathe. Throughout the world, there is a determination to achieve sustainable development, not to cheat our children. Not only in the rich west but in the poor south we must find a way through on a global basis. But none of us can be excused from accepting our individual responsibility for contributing to sustainable development.

Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the opportunity to debate the documents and sustainable development. I am pleased that the Government say that they want to take Rio forward. It is good to see them trying to go forwards rather than backwards for a change.
The Government announced the four documents with a great fanfare of trumpets at the Banqueting house. Again tonight, there has been much trumpeting from the Secretary of State about how wonderful the Government are being. But what do the documents really add up to? The answer, I am afraid, is very little. They contain a reiteration of existing statements and commitments, but little that is new. The Government have laboured mightily and brought forth 567 pages, two committees and advice on opening your curtains when you get up in the morning.
The two committees are all well and good, but they do not add up to a real vision of a sustainable future for our country or the rest of the earth that we all share. May I


highlight some general failures in this exercise by the Government? First, they have failed to look with real imagination to the long term. They have recognised the need to do so, but have not done it. The documents contain no sense within the Government of a real concept of where our country could be in 50 or 100 years' time.
There is much talk about the need for research, consultation and waiting for evidence before making decisions, but no sense of direction. If the Government had a sense of direction, they would have recognised the importance of global actions and solutions, especially in relation to the developing world.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is here, because he pointed out that, following the Budget, the Government are freezing the amount that our country is spending, in cash terms, on overseas aid. Let us put that into the equation when discussing global solutions to sustainability. Let us also put the general agreement on tariffs and trade into the global arena. I was pleased that the Secretary of State—this was a first for the Government—acknowledged today that we need to put the environment into the GATT process. When the Prime Minister came back from the Uruguay round, he was asked about that by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. This, in fact, answers the question that the Secretary of State asked today about my right hon. and learned Friend, who asked the Prime Minister about the impact of the outcome of the GATT negotiations on the environment. The Prime Minister replied that no one thought there was a problem. Everyone accepted, he said, that the environment was happily taken care of.
Of course, the environment has not been taken care of. Many people are rightly worried that the GATT process will trump environmental protection in international agreements. We want the environment and its needs written firmly and clearly into the remit of the new world trading organisation.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am all in favour of bringing the environment into the GATT round, but many of the most vociferous opponents of the idea are countries of the south which believe that it would be used as a cloak for protectionism by the rich countries of the west.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman misreads the feelings of many countries in the south. They want to be able to exercise protection of their environment themselves; at the moment, the GATT rules do not allow them to. If environmental protection became an excuse for protectionism, that would not be a good thing. Equally, we must not allow the cause of free trade to lead to the unnecessary degradation of the global environment.
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the documents is that which deals with the prospect of catastrophic climatic change and the impact of carbon dioxide emissions leading up to and beyond the year 2000. Let us consider the steps leading up to the year 2000 first. The Secretary of State made a great deal of that in his speech. Perhaps, then, he will tell us where he believes the savings of carbon dioxide emissions will come from through the work of the Energy Saving Trust. That trust has £6 million from British Gas and a promise of £25 million from the regional electricity companies—and that is it. Is this the trust that is going to

yield up about a quarter of the prospective savings of carbon dioxide to which the Secretary of State tells us the Government are already firmly committed? I suspect that we need to hear a great deal more about the funding for, and the actions of, the Energy Saving Trust before we can believe that the Government intend to deliver their commitment.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in February 1993 he told Green Magazine that Labour had been thinking of a number of small but effective tax measures, which included increasing VAT on environmentally unfriendly products? On which products would he put VAT; and does he consider coal-fired power stations, with their production of carbon dioxide, environmentally friendly?

Mr. Smith: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what our document, published in 1991, said—that we would favour putting small increases of VAT on items such as heavy metal batteries and materials containing CFCs. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a heavy metal battery and a domestic gas bill, I am afraid that he is even more stupid than I thought.
The Government's bogus argument is that VAT on domestic fuel is a green measure, intended to change environmental behaviour. In fact, of course, it is designed purely to raise money for the Exchequer—but they do not tell us that. Putting up the price of domestic energy does not change the behaviour of the overwhelming majority, who carry on using the same amount of energy as before, but paying more for it. The people who give up using some of their energy are the people who cannot afford to carry on using it. So the entire burden of a minimal reduction in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions is borne by those who are least able to bear it. That is what happens when VAT is imposed on domestic fuel.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment carried out a study of energy efficiency and recommended that the Energy Saving Trust be funded to the tune of £1·5 billion. Where does the hon. Gentleman think that sort of money should come from? If he thinks it should come from the utilities, will he make it clear to the British people that their electricity and gas bills will have to rise considerably to meet that target?

Mr. Smith: First, the hon. Gentleman should ask the Secretary of State that question. Secondly, it seems to have escaped his notice that the regional electricity companies are making about £1·5 billion profits each year. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman had properly read the Opposition's proposals for a national programme of energy efficiency work, he would know that what we propose does not require a single penny's contribution from the taxpayer. Nevertheless, under the sort of programme that we suggest, with a small premium increase in the unit cost of gas and electricity only for people who have had energy efficiency work carried out for free, four times as much carbon dioxide could be saved as the Government claim they will save by means of imposing VAT.

Mr. Dafis: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm one little statistic? Is it not true that Government receipts from 17·5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel will amount to £2·5 billion?

Mr. Smith: Correct. But the Government will spend only about 2 per cent. of that on the home energy efficiency scheme. So the Secretary of State's claims to generosity—all that extra money going into energy efficiency—amount to nothing more than one fiftieth of the sum that the Government intend to take away from people.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Paymaster General was asked, during consideration of last year's Finance Bill, what percentage of the VAT would go on energy measures, he said that he was not prepared to answer hypothetical questions? Does not that nail the lie being used to mislead the public about the reasons behind the VAT?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was noticeable that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introducing his Budget in March last year, said not a word about any increase in funding for energy efficiency work. Finally, however, the Government woke up to the fact that they had to be seen to be doing something to mitigate the impact of VAT, and that they did in November.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman is wriggling and refusing to answer a simple question. I shall ask him once again. Which taxes will he enforce or raise to reduce CO2 emissions? It is a simple question. Please may we have a simple answer?

Mr. Smith: I have already given a simple answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). By establishing a national programme of energy efficiency work, such as we propose, one can save four times the amount of energy that the Government claim to be saving through the imposition of value added tax, without imposing a single penny of extra tax.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) can tell us why—even on the Government's figures—Britain's carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by less than 1 per cent. through the imposition of VAT on fuel. The Government are imposing the maximum social pain and distress on millions of people for absolutely minimal environmental benefit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: I must speed on, so I shall not allow any more interventions at this stage.
What will happen after the year 2000? The Government's calculations for what they will do in the run up to 2000 are paltry, but when we ask what they have in store beyond that year they say:
Further international action may well be necessary. The current Convention measures will need to be reviewed in the light of the further scientific evidence that has been sought.
In other words, they have no clue what will happen beyond the year 2000.
At the moment, all we have from the Government is a commitment, which they show little sign of being able to meet as carbon dioxide emissions are rising, to have emissions at the 1990 level in the year 2000. We have no commitment beyond that, not even one to stabilise at the level from the year 2000. The documents do not give us any further information.
The first general failing of the documents is that they have no real long-term vision. The second general failure is that the Government do not understand, as they should, that environment protection can be an opportunity and not merely a threat and a burden. Throughout the documents,

the environment is seen as something that imposes penalties and dampens prosperity, but it can be a stimulus for prosperity. It is estimated that the global market in environmental products and technologies will be worth at least $300 billion a year by the turn of the century. I hope that, instead of harping all the time on the difficulties of meeting some of the environmental challenges, the Government will start to think about the inherent opportunities.
Thirdly, the documents fail to understand that sustainability is about social equity as well as environmental probity. The Government have totally failed to grasp that fact and their attempt to claim VAT as an environmental measure is precisely in that category. A sustainable approach does not mean that one simply ignores people's needs, especially the needs of those least able to cope with some of the changes that may be necessary.
The Government's documents are, therefore, defective in their wider vision, but the detail also leaves a lot to be desired. There are four areas of concern. First, the roads programme; even the Government are beginning to show some signs of recognising that the development of public transport and not the building of more roads provides the key to a proper sustainable transport policy. Will they, therefore, admit that they were wrong to desecrate Twyford down? If the Secretary of State is so fond of Gerard Manley Hopkins—as, indeed, am I—he will know the closing lines of that wonderful poem, "Inversnaid", where Hopkins writes:
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and wildness? Let them be left
O let them be left, wildness and wet:
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.
Will the Secretary of State apply that to Twyford down; to the 161 sites of special scientific interest that are due to be destroyed by the roads programme; and to the 500 SSSIs that have been damaged during the past three years? Will he apply those principles to the sites that we ought to be declaring inviolable for ever, as part of our implementation of the European Union's habitats directive? Will he apply that to the parts of the home counties where the M25 is to be widened?
If the Secretary of State is serious about putting sustainability at the heart of our transport policies, he will launch a proper and thorough review of the roads programme and its impact on the environment.
I touched on the second area of concern when I mentioned habitats and biodiversity. The hedgerows are one of the most important forms of habitat in this country. The Government said in their manifesto at the last election—we know that they said a lot of things which have since turned out not to be the case—that they would legislate to provide statutory protection for our hedgerows. So, what has happened? A Conservative Back-Bench Member valiantly tabled a private Member's Bill to do precisely that, but it was talked out by some of his fellow Conservative Back Benchers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who has pursued such matters vigorously since he came to the House, produced a Bill last Friday which would have provided protection for hedgerows, but the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who sits on the Conservative Benches, objected and the Bill fell.
The deregulation task force document produced by the Government states in recomendation No. 314 that the task force recommends:
Abandon the proposed introduction of hedgerow legislation.
That recommendation is, as yet, undenied.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is putting the argument rather one-sidedly. He should recall that three years ago I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill to protect hedgerows. The Bill was not blocked by any of my Conservative colleagues or the Conservative Whip but by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to reintroduce his Bill, I can assure him that he will have full co-operation from the Opposition to ensure that it gets through. We have made the Government that offer on several occasions. If the Government want to introduce legislation—perhaps as part of their long-delayed legislation to pave the way for an environmental protection agency—we would give them full and speedy co-operation.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and the Secretary of State could tell us whether it is the Conservative party manifesto commitment on hedgerows that will stand or the deregulation task force proposal. We have lost one fifth of our hedgerows during the past 10 years and it is about time that they had proper statutory protection.
The third area of concern is forestry. At the moment, Britain is one of the least forested countries in Europe. There has been a remarkable improvement in the planting, conservation and access policies of the Forestry Commission during recent years. The Government appear to accept, because they signed up to the forest principles strategy at Rio, that we need a proper forestry strategy. But there is no prospect of a national strategy if, as the Government appear to wish, the Forestry Commission is to be privatised.
An interdepartmental working party is already beavering away and is due to report to Ministers about now. Ministers are due to make their decisions on the future of the Forestry Commission in the next few weeks. We in the Labour party insist that the Forestry Commission, in whole or in part, should remain in the public sector. It should not be privatised because, if it were, public access, the conservation values of forest maintenance and management and the possiblity of having a genuine national strategy for the future of our forests would be diminished. Perhaps the Minister will give us a commitment that the Government will abandon any plans to privatise the Forestry Commission.
The fourth issue on which progress could be made is bathing water standards. At the moment, our bathing water and our beaches fail to meet the European Community directive legal levels for quality in far too many cases. If one looks around the regions, one will see that, in the south-west, 13 per cent. of beaches fail to meet the standards. In southern England, outside London, 24 per cent. fail to meet legal standards. In the north-west, 67 per cent.—two thirds—of all the beaches have bathing water that fails to meet the legal requirements laid down in agreed European directives.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) seems to be placing much reliance on European legislation. Surely he must remember the Environment Select Committee's unanimous condemnation of the directive for being poorly based on science. That has been reiterated by the Director General of Water Services. Furthermore, a substantial piece of work has been done by Which? exposing how it is enforced in Europe and here.

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, unusually, is mistaken. He is getting his directives mixed up. What he said might well be true as far as the drinking water directive is concerned, but it is not true in relation to the bathing water directive. If he wants a practical demonstration of that, I have with me a sample of bathing water, culled only yesterday, from a beach in Cornwall. Its contents are rather unpleasant. This is the bathing water
What are the Government up to? They are in what one might call a recidivists' alliance with the new right-wing Government in France, trying to get the bathing water directive and a whole series of others repealed, withdrawn or amended. The bathing water directive is there on the memorandum that is circulating between the two Governments.
The Prime Minister may believe, as he told us when he came back from the Council in December, that it is perfectly all right for us to swim in sewage when we go to the seaside in this country. I do not share that belief. I want to ensure that our bathing water is improved rather than diminished in quality. I want to see the bathing water directive upheld and not dismantled. I have the proof of why it is needed.
I have identified only four of the many specific issues that could be advanced. We must see much better progress, much more conviction and some signs of real action if the Government are to be believed in what they say about sustainability; otherwise, these documents and the Government's statements on sustainable development will remain simply statements, worthy statements perhaps, but with no sign of action and no real vision underlining them.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), because he and I were old colleagues on the Environment Select Committee many years before he reached his present distinguished role, which I hope he will enjoy for many years.
I should remind the hon. Member that the Environment Select Committee has produced reports not only on the drinking water directive but on the bathing water directive as well. The unanimous findings were that the directive was not well based in science. As I said a moment ago, that has been upheld by what the Director General of Ofwat has said, but also by an interesting paper—I commend it to the hon. Gentleman—produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
One example of where the directive is defective in science is that the parameter for the incidence of salmonella—as laid down in the bathing water directive—is nil, not 0·001 or 0·000001 per cent. As a third of all


gulls carry salmonella, any beach that is near gulls could pass only if those gulls were shot. I am sure that that is not a method which the hon. Gentleman would commend. Like him, I am totally committed to improving the standard of bathing waters, but the matter should be addressed by reference to proper health threats, not by simply framing directives in poorly produced scientific language.
I feel a bit left out of the debate, because I have not brought my book of Hopkins poetry with me. I will not venture down that road. One of the most striking things about the debate is that if it had been held in the aftermath of Rio, approximately two years ago, there would have been far more press attention and far more hon. Members in the House.
We have gone a great way since Rio in all sorts of ways, but I am afraid that, in public perceptions and interest, we seem to have gone backwards. That confirms my general impression that the media are more interested in issues that are trivial and transitory than those that are important and long-term, as undoubtedly this issue is.
Rio was accompanied by much razzmatazz. None of us could have woken up and not heard—if we listened to the "Today" programme—Brian Redhead and others lecturing us on all these extremely important issues and saying what a critical conference it was. Some things have come out of it, but it is a painfully slow business.
There is much common ground between Opposition Members and Conservative Members. I include Ministers in that, because trying to take forward international agreements when one knows that some who signed up to them did so because they wanted press attention at the time of the razzmatazz, yet had no intention whatever of honouring them, must be a frustrating process.
Some criticism was made of the United Kingdom at the time for wanting to look at the fine print of the various agreements before signing up. As so often under those circumstances, the United Kingdom is only the second country to publish a detailed response. I am reminded of a report on acid rain, of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I were co-authors. We said that the Government should join the 30 per cent. club. They did not, but they were very confident that they would achieve the club's objectives. That has come to pass. But has the hon. Gentleman looked recently at the record of all the countries that signed up? Quite a few subsequently said, "Sorry; we meant to achieve that goal, but we did not manage to."
I had the honour to be one of the four Members of Parliament who attended the IPU follow-up conference in Rio, in November 1992. Considerable interest was expressed in some of our United Kingdom activities—especially the annual reports of the Department of the Environment, which are extremely well set out and coherent, and contribute greatly to debate on a factual rather than a suppository basis. [Laughter.] It is always possible to make slips: on a previous occasion, I referred to the Po without adding the word "river".
I also welcome the digest of statistics produced by the Department; that, too, contributes a great deal to factual debate. What Rio produced were words, words, words and yet more words. I do not believe that future generations would forgive us if we did not deliver on some of those words—and one of the most important subjects is climate change and global warming.
There is, in general, a scientific consensus on that, although some debate still takes place: the greenhouse

effect is recognised as highly probable, although there is room for debate on whether global warming results from it. However, there are extremists on both sides. There are the ostriches, who will say that, because one or two scientists do not agree, we should do nothing; and there are those would take us back to the dark ages, reacting hysterically and histrionically to the evidence.
I think it eminently sensible to operate on the precautionary principle—not just because of the important matters that are at stake, but because the precautions make sense in their own right. It makes sense to conserve resources and energy, to preserve species and to be both good neighbours and good forebears for generations yet to come. I have always felt—as, no doubt, have other hon. Members—that my duty is to pass on to the next generation a world better than the world that I inherited.
I believe that, so far, we are on common ground; but all the actions taken in the United Kingdom and the European Union will be of little consequence if we cannot export our attitudes to other countries. Countries such as China are so important, in terms of their population and their potential economic growth, that if they are unwilling to play a part in the attempt to tackle global warming, we might as well all pack up and go home. We must take every opportunity to embrace such countries in international conventions, and to assist them by means of technology transfer and other forms of help.
The Government have, very properly, entitled their attempt to turn their aims into action at home "Helping the Earth Begins at Home". Fifty per cent. of our greenhouse gas emissions are generated by and from buildings; 25 per cent. are caused by traffic. Every individual has some control over those emissions.
One of the depressing features of traffic emissions is that, although Europe and the United Kingdom spend considerable time producing regulations that control what goes into cars at one end and what goes out at the other, little effort has been put into trying to improve the efficiency of the engines in between. There is enormous scope for new technology in car design that might cut that 25 per cent. total.
I believe that the car is with us to stay. Although it is highly desirable that more people use public transport wherever possible—or, indeed, use no transport other than their own two legs—there is a good case for ensuring that the traffic that remains is civilised. That means proper traffic management schemes, proper bypasses and a good look at road pricing—not necessarily in terms of charges for motorways, which would deal with the wrong end of the problem, but in terms of charges for entry to congested cities. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will examine that possibility first.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Surely the real problem—which the Government have not yet tackled—is how to reduce dependence on the motor car. We all agree that such a measure would be very unpopular, but no one has come up with an effective proposal this evening.

Mr. Jones: Of course that is a problem. I think that pricing has a part to play, along with changing attitudes and trying to encourage more car sharing. I have always believed, however, that, rather than trying to make water flow uphill, we should recognise what people are going to do and try to make it less environmentally damaging. That, I think, represents the thrust of what I have been saying.
I have mentioned the importance of bypasses. My constituency is fortunate, in that the A41 bypass opened recently. It is well recognised as one of the most environmentally friendly new roads in Britain: it will have 80,000 trees along its length by the end of the planting season, and it will bring much-needed relief to the communities on its path—Berkhamsted, Northchurch, Bourne End, King's Langley and Hemel Hempstead.
My constituents living in those roads—and in roads represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page)—will know that the environmental arguments are strongly in favour of the bypass, and I am sure that the same is true of other hon. Members' constituents.
Those who attack the roads programme always seem to be in favour of the bypass in their constituencies; it is the generality they attack. A few months ago, I replied to a constituent from Friends of the Earth who had suggested that the programme should be reduced, asking him to give me a list of the roads that he thought should be removed from it. He never replied: they never do, because they are unwilling to face up to what may happen in individual areas.
I have referred to emissions from buildings, which may be caused by heating or lighting. There is undoubtedly a strong case for greater efforts in energy conservation, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury rightly pointed out; currently, however, we await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on that important subject.
I will not anticipate either that response or the debate that I hope will follow it, but I shall highlight one or two points. The energy ratio fell between 1983 and 1989, but that trend reversed, and there has since been a sustained 3·7 per cent. per annum increase, which needs to be addressed. My noble Friend Lord Walker of Worcester said 10 years ago:
A new publicity campaign would move the UK from being one of the most apathetic nations in energy conservation to a position where we are the best within two years.
I never did think much of my noble Friend's forecasting methods, but he has to be so far out with that particular prediction that I hope he will not be reminded of it too often. If we do not try to deliver on his promise of 10 years ago, we shall be in severe trouble in future. There must be greater legislative effort and more resources directed at energy conservation.
There have been exchanges during this debate on the Energy Saving Trust Ltd. I reiterate that it must be properly financed. As the Committee recommended, the Government must adopt a proactive stance, to ensure that all interested parties realise the important role that they should play.
In that context, I was particularly disturbed by the recent comments by the gas industry regulator to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, in which she appeared to go back on her commitment to the E factor and to energy conservation. I subsequently had an exchange of letters that may be published eventually, but I am still extremely concerned that the regulator is not taking that part of her duties as seriously as she should. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the Select Committee's recommendation that a statutory duty should be placed on regulators to have regard to the environment.

There is much to be said for public authorities setting a proper example. There are some good stories of energy conservation among Government Departments, but such achievements have not been universal and in some cases, Departments have gone backwards. The new system of green Ministers should not be just a pleasant get-together now and again, but must contribute to ensuring that the laggards pull their weight and deliver energy savings.
The local authority sector is extremely important because of the number of disadvantaged families that it embraces. Local authority and housing association new build and property renovation should be undertaken with energy efficiency in mind. There are still many technical barriers to that in the local government regime—particularly in respect of leasing. I hope that there will be a positive reaction to the Committee's recommendation in due course. I would attach strings to all future capital investment to ensure that energy saving is delivered.
Greater emphasis must be placed on combined heat and power. It is absurd that so much energy is wasted by not co-ordinating power generation and the heating of offices, factories and homes. Proper energy labelling is also important. It is difficult for the public to know when they are purchasing an environmentally friendly piece of equipment or even an environmentally friendly house. In my constituency, Admiral Homes—pioneers in energy conservation—designed a house with a rating of 10, which is an important achievement.
However, lending authorities such as banks and building societies do not take energy efficiency into account when valuing properties or deciding how much to advance individual borrowers. That does not make sense. If people enjoy lower household running expenses because they spend less on energy, they must more easily be able to afford the repayments on the capital borrowed. One way forward would be for building societies and banks to change their lending policies in that regard.
Although I see scope for flexibility in building regulations between one parameter and another, the last thing I want is a dilution of the impact of these regulations on energy efficiency. I was horrified at the statement by the managing director of Bovis Homes when he was appointed to one deregulatory party—that he was out to get the building regulations. That seemed to be prejudging the issue that he was meant to examine, and was quite inappropriate.
Price must play a part in reducing energy consumption. Whatever Opposition Members may say about value added tax on fuel, it did not exist in the past. I remind the House that the Liberal party document, "Costing the Earth", said that it advocated
as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy … The United Kingdom is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT to domestic fuels … If it proved completely impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes, we would nonetheless press forward, but phase them in at lower levels than otherwise—for example, by ending the anomalous zero-rate of VAT on fuel".
No amount of wriggling by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will get the Liberals off that hook. We all know that the Liberal party ditches promises whenever there is a convenient by-election. I live in the Millwall ward of the Isle of Dogs, for goodness' sake: I know the sort of literature that comes through the door from the Liberal party. It is disgusting, and the Liberal party's response to it is disgusting. There


is no way in which the Liberals could deliver on the energy philosophy they set out in the document I quoted and in others.
It is fair to say that price, although important, is not enough. There have to be carrots as well as sticks. There are schemes in place which benefit some people. I commend the Energy Saving Trust, the home energy efficiency scheme and the Government's extension of that scheme.
However, the middle classes, who could well afford to cut their energy consumption, are complacent about it. Not one constituent who has written to me complaining about VAT who lives in a large house and comes from a well-heeled background has said anything about the environment or about doing anything to their home. Yet I know from what I have done to my home that one can save enormous quantities of electricity, gas or oil if one goes about it in the right way.
I said that it was necessary to move people away from their total dependence on the motor car, so I welcome the increase above the rate of inflation in the tax on fuel. An effective measure that could accompany that is to get rid of the car tax and put the same amount on fuel tax.
That would save on the cost of administration of the car tax. It would deal once and for all with tax dodging. It would provide a powerful incentive to use less fuel. It would not harm pensioners, because on the whole they do much less than the average mileage. The measure would hit those who use cars to drive long distances every year. I catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) at that point, but I know that he uses the train frequently.
Forestry was an important part of the Rio declaration. It is important internationally. We must remember that sustainability is the key. Nothing is more depressing than seeing so-called environmentalists campaigning for bans on imports of hardwoods. By doing so, they tell a country that what it has is of no value. If what a country has is of no value and it cannot make any money out of it, it will find something to do with the land which will generate an income. That is bound to be bad environmentally.
We must encourage those who have sustainable policies and discourage those who have not. For example, peninsular Malaysia has the British heritage of an excellent 50-year replanting cycle, although there have been problems on the island of Borneo. Other countries in west Africa and south-east Asia do not have sustainable policies. I strongly recommend taking a differential approach not only to countries but to plantations and companies within them.
It is important that we do what we can, but we must do it in practical terms. I remember talking to a leading environmentalist in Brazil when I visited that country a few years ago with the Select Committee. Museo Goldi said that people in the west had to get away from talking about the environment at cocktail parties and start to help countries to do something about improving sustainability. He went on to say that the British had one of the best records that he had come across. The Overseas Development Administration was financing work through the Oxford Forestry Institute to help Brazil to improve its performance.
There is a lot to do. One has to remember that the greatest fire in the history of the world occurred in Brazil. It occurred because of the tax regime in Brazil. The cause of the fire was Volkswagen—a funny sort of company to

cause a fire in a forest. Apparently, it owned the land and needed to demonstrate that it was being developed, which was done by burning down the trees.
At home, I think that the Government's response to the report that we produced on forestry and the environment was a little disappointing. There are some positive signs; I welcome the fact that the Government are considering the need for a national forestry strategy. Given our low tree cover ratio, I find it peculiar that the Government rejected our recommendation to establish one-stop shops to provide advice on forestry applications and grants. Landowners who have to go between the Countryside Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local authorities and other organisations become lost in a maze, and probably put off the idea.
Equally important in the report was our recommendation that England, Scotland and Wales should be considered separately for the purpose of developing forestry strategy. The geography and geology in each of those countries are different, and, although they should be brought together in a national forestry strategy, what is right for Scotland is not necessarily right for England, and vice versa.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of Scotland, the hon. Gentleman knows the case of Mar lodge, and he knows Dr. Jim Ratter, the adviser on the Select Committee that went to Brazil. A number of us feel strongly—as does Dr. Ratter—that we must set an example. If we are to make suggestions to the Brazilians about what they should do with their Atlantic rain forests, we had better do something about the ancient forest of Caledon.

Mr. Jones: I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Gentleman, who would not expect me to comment specifically on that issue.
In many third-world countries, it has rightly been asked of me, "How can you lecture us about what to do with our forests when you have destroyed the vast majority of yours in the industrialisation process?" It is extremely important not to lecture, but to try to work in co-operation with others, which is why I praised the work of the Overseas Development Administration.
In the almost 11 years that I have been in the House, I have never been involved in a debate with such a long-term impact on the future of not just this country but the world. It is sad that so little seems to have been achieved in the intervening period since the Rio summit. But our Government have done a great deal more than others, for which I commend them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The partisan comments of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) spoilt his argument and were as invalid as the similar part of the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, his non-partisan comments contained many sensible suggestions, which I hope that the Government will take up. He also made some mild criticisms of several Government policies, which I hope that the Government will read, hear and act on.
Today's debate is the first since the Energy Conservation Bill passed through the House on Friday. Passing legislation and doing things will also be far more effective than talking—that was the message of Rio. I welcome the fact that the Energy Conservation Bill has not


yet been blocked by the Government, and I hope that they do not seek to water it down in Committee—one of the first practical tests of whether we are serious about sustainability.
It is ironic that we are having the debate today—the very day that the Government are defending their position on wanting to start up THORP, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant. They are also trying to defend their unwillingness to have a public inquiry. To many of us, and to huge numbers of people up and down the country, that is one of the most unsustainable of the Government's recent commitments. I hope that the court will be able to provide an effective backstop and order the Government to have a public inquiry.
Today's debate is welcome. I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to his relatively new responsibilities. I am glad to see him here and look forward to working with him.
The debate should have occurred in the summer. It was scheduled to occur in the last week of term before the summer holiday, but it was hijacked by the Maastricht shenanigans and was lost. That is a reflection of the failure of the system, to which I shall return. Producing documents and then debating policy, as opposed to debating policy and then producing documents, is a funny system and a funny way to govern and consult. It is all too indicative of the way in which we have behaved so far and I am ever hopeful that the system will improve. We should have had the debate here and in the other place well before now so that it could have influenced the content of the Government's documents when they came to produce them.
My premise, to which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West alluded, is that the Government should set an example. Whatever the standards of other Governments in following up the Rio summit, we should set an example. Even if others' standards fall short, we should seek to have the higher standards. On that premise, the Government are about to submit their document—a little belatedly, as they committed themselves to producing it by the end of September—to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which was set up at the Rio conference.
We ought to note that the debate, as evidenced by the current consultations between the Whips on the Front Bench, is far too short for the subject. To fit in a debate which will last for no more than two and a half hours and the last of the substantive business after a private Member's motion again indicates a lack of commitment to take the issue as seriously as it merits. It is not that the country is not committed. One of the interesting—and, if we are not careful, misleading—facts displayed in the opinion polls is that people still think environmental issues are less serious. That is not true. Most people have adopted the environmental agenda and have recognised the importance of it. It may not be at the top of their list: if they are out of work, they may have other things to think about. With 3 million people unemployed, it is not surprising that employment or the state of the economy is at the top of the list. But most of the environmental pressures and movements of the 1980s have produced a residual strong commitment and we should not be deluded either by the apparent lack of interest or by the apparent shortness of the

debate. We want to take part in the debate, we want to influence the Government and what I shall say will be aimed at trying to get the Government to be stronger, better, quicker, faster and tougher. They have taken some steps, but many of us believe that they have not yet gone far or fast enough.
The fundamental issues have been alluded to and addressed either specifically or indirectly in the documents that the Government produced at their £20,000 jamboree down the road at the Banqueting house during the past month. We are talking about the sort of growth that we achieve and the quality of life that we want and can get. We are also discussing the right level of consumption and not just accepting that there is a demand for more and more consumption. The debate is not only about inter-generational equity, as it is called, but about equity in Britain and equity around the world. These are all big issues.
It is not acceptable that after 14 years of Conservative government the gap between the rich and poor in the country has widened; nor is it justified by the fact that the same has happened in most other countries. It is certainly unacceptable that the gap between the richest 20 per cent. and the poorest 80 per cent. has widened. Those issues were all on the Agenda 21 part of the debates at the Rio summit. This debate addresses that entire range of subjects, including population, housing and quality of life the world over.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall try to let as many hon. Members intervene as possible, but the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has intervened twice already.
Ministers are clearly increasingly nervous about the Liberal Democrats; otherwise, they would not have a go at us so often. They must be nervous if they continually have to quote the draft before the final draft before the final document as policy and never allude to the final policy document itself. If they are nervous because we are chasing them, I am happy about that, too.

Dr. Spink: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way on that point because I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.
The responses to the White Paper suggested a general disappointment. It contained many coulds, ifs and maybes rather than whys, whats and whens. The Government need not accept my word—the National Society for Clean Air called it
A Small Step for Sustainability
and Friends of the Earth said that it had been
disappointed by the limited extent to which any new approach to marrying the twin objectives of sound economic development and protecting the environment has emerged.
In the days following the Whitehall launch down the road, many newspaper headlines reflected the general disappointment.

Dr. Spink: But what taxes would the Liberal Democrats impose?

Mr. Hughes: I can deal with taxes if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but I am trying to keep to the central issue. I shall end my remarks by saying yes, we all have to pay. We should be quite straightforward about that.
The day after the launch many newspaper editorials reflected the general disappointment. One stated that the gloomy environmental picture posed "hard questions" and would need
not just a searching scrutiny of the lifestyle of the Great Car Economy but a challenge to familiar assumptions about growth and change
and suggested that the Secretary of State's reference to Cardinal Newman was not very useful. The Financial Times, hardly a partisan newspaper, judged the White Paper to be "a pale green blockbuster". The Independent said:
Major gives green light to nuclear industry growth.
Those comments represent incompatible views, but there were also adverse comments from those whom one would expect to be critical, which included:
Our green hopes, their empty words".
Andrew Marr wrote an interesting commentary in which he made it clear that the documents did, however, highlight some difficult choices.
Let us accept that the Government had generally high expectations. No one thought that they were doing terribly well and the documents told us little new. Indeed, I think that it was Madam Speaker who said that it was not a new policy, which was why there was no statement in the House. Some of us knew already that it contained nothing new.
Let me suggest why we were disappointed and how the Government should respond. First, the White Paper contained an inadequate set of responses. It contains inadequate targets, timetables and proposals for monitoring. I and many others believe that unless we have clear targets and timetables and an objective method of monitoring our attainment of those targets and timetables we shall be partisan and merely whistling in the dark.
We need economic indicators. Many people have worked on indicators that would serve our purpose. We need valid projections, statistics, facts and figures to assess objectively how well the Government are doing. By definition, they are not those produced by the Government in their own defence to justify themselves when, like any Government, they fall short of their objectives.
Secondly, the whole process needs to be much less inadequate. It is not sufficient to have a series of Green and White Papers which regularly fall short of the targets that they themselves set. There can be no doubt that that is what is happening at the moment. We have a process whereby the Government consult, disappoint those whom they have consulted by appearing not to have listened, produce documents and then propose inadequate mechanisms for carrying forward the debate anticipated at Rio. A panel, or round table, on sustainable development and a citizens environment initiative are no substitute for a series of rigorous governmental processes to test the validity of what is and what is not a sustainable policy.
We should establish an entirely free-standing body which is regularly the proactive generator of proposals—a body like a royal commission. Local and central thinking should be integrated into that body. Any draft governmental proposal should be rigorously scrutinised by Select Committees of both Houses before it is concluded and, so far as possible, a consensus should be sought. I am not arguing that my view alone should prevail; I want the best common agreement. I believe that I can persuade the Government of the merit of my case, but I shall not have

the opportunity to do so if there is no debate before they produce their documents or if they do not read or take account of people's submissions.
There is much good practice. The Dutch are very good and the Canadians are very good, for example, and the Government know that. It has been suggested to me, and I agree, that if the Government did what the Canadians did last year—passed an Act of Parliament setting up the mechanism for a round table and so on—we would do better. Will the Minister consider the Canadian model and the Dutch model—the American model is not far behind—and provide us with an evaluation of whether we could use those models here?
My third proposal is about inadequate integration. For me, the test of whether we have sustainable development is whether we marry sustainable economic policy into our sustainable environmental policy. For me, that means that the Treasury is central. In Holland, much taxation never passes into law until it is co-signed not only by the Chancellor or the Finance Minister but by the Environment Minister. Unless we debate the sustainable benefit of taxation A compared with taxation B, we shall not bring about that marriage.
The reason why the Government got into such a muddle in connection with VAT on fuel, and the reason why the Liberal Democrats backed off the idea, was that it did not add up as the best way of taxing for green purposes. If the Government had consulted widely about it instead of the Chancellor pulling it out of his red box and saying, "Wow! Here is a good money-raising wheeze and it is also environmentally sound", the Government would not have been in so much hot water and they might not have lost two by-elections to the Liberal Democrats during this Parliament.
There are many ways in which one can test sustainable policies and we each might have our pet test. I can only list some of the ways in which one can test them.
One can test them by considering energy policy. I would argue that one needs a sustainable, coherent energy policy; one cannot have the nuclear review one day, the renewables review the next and decide the future of the coal industry the day after that. We have to ensure that we do what we say we will do. It is no good saying that we will reduce energy consumption if Government buildings then consume more energy. It is no good setting Energy Saving Trust Ltd. a task and then giving it a minimal amount of what it needs to carry it out.
Alternatively, one can use transport as the test. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) gave obvious comparable examples. One has to ask oneself whether the motorway widening scheme is acceptable on present tests. Is it acceptable that we lose more than 50 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest as a result of about half of our motorway schemes? The answer that I and others would give to that is definitely no.
One can use agriculture, planning and the countryside as the test, whether one considers hedgerows or sites of special scientific interest—only five years ago, 3 per cent. of those remaining sites had been destroyed, but now 5 per cent. have been destroyed. I welcome what has been said about planning and out-of-town superstores, and so on, but that was a policy for which some of us argued 15 or 20 years ago and it is now a bit late. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said from a sedentary position earlier that it is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We have built all the blessed


superstores out of town now; the country has been ploughed up; people have to drive to the stores and they are not near railway stations. It is a bit late now, but I hope that we have learnt the lesson.
We could have had sustainable targets for air pollution as the test. The Government eventually signed up in Rio to a target for carbon dioxide emissions, but with no legal commitment. That is not good enough. There are already serious doubts about whether even the target that the Government set is sustainable and achievable on the basis of their present performance. We have to do better in terms of domestic, vehicular and industrial pollution if we are to achieve even the Government's target for the year 2000.
We can use water pollution as the test. To use a crude test, six of our eight premier bathing resorts still discharge raw sewage. If that is where we have arrived after 14 years of Conservative government, the priorities are wrong.
There are many tests. Those are some of the obvious ones. Population is another one. Trade is one. Aid is one—and in Malaysia recently there have been examples showing the inadequacies of our aid programme.
I was asked the question that we are all asked: are we speaking about hypocrisy or reality? The answer is that we have to speak about reality, and reality requires difficult nettles to be grasped. It requires us to work out how we pay the price. The question about how we pay the price has an answer. We pay the price by making the most worthwhile investment and we make the most worthwhile investment by ensuring that we hand on the same amount of capital in the bank, if not more.
Maurice Strong, the secretary general to UNCED, said;
We have to make sure that the road from Rio is a fast track, if we are to realise our hope that the United Nations Earth Summit really was a quantum leap forward on that road to sustainable development.
Nobody could call the British road from Rio a fast track. We have started on the road, but unless we go much further, much faster and much more effectively, it will not be we who pay the price, but those who come after. We shall have spoilt their chances of inheriting from us a sustainable world.

Dr. Robert Spink: The climate change convention commits developed countries to taking measures aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Government have accepted that commitment and they will meet that commitment. They might even better it. That is real action, not just words. We have already heard tonight that we need real action, not more words, to protect the environment.
A real and positive contribution can be made by nuclear electricity generation to reduce the United Kingdom's emission targets for the year 2000. We currently generate about 22 per cent. of our electrical power through nuclear energy. If we replaced that by gas or coal-burn generation, the UK's emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases would be dramatically increased. The Secretary of State said that there would then be an increase of 6 million to 15 million tonnes of carbon a year.
We must ensure that we retain a balanced energy strategy which allows for the replacement of the old Magnox reactors as they go off stream before the year

2000. We need new nuclear stations and new nuclear capacity to come on stream to replace the Magnox stations. I am as anxious as other hon. Members to bring forward the energy debate when we can review the position of nuclear power within our strategy. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to press his right hon. Friends to bring forward that review. I accept what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the need for a co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy which would embrace issues such as waste management. However, I believe that we should bring forward the nuclear review at the earliest possible moment so that we can plan rationally and responsibly how to protect and enhance the environment and to meet our Rio commitments. If we are to meet our Rio commitments, we need a stable nuclear component within a balanced energy strategy. I hope that the Opposition will now accept that fact.
Labour has consistently called for the adoption of more stringent targets than those included in the convention to deal with the problem of climate change. After the Rio summit, the then Labour environment spokesman attacked the Government for dragging their feet. Labour claimed in June 1992 that more could have been achieved and that British Ministers could have played a more positive role, especially in respect of global warming. How could they have done? Where is Labour's policy for achieving more? How could the Labour party achieve more, without imposing taxes on energy, when it wants to destroy the nuclear component of power generation? Will the Minister explain that to me, because I fail to see how it could be achieved?
The Liberal party has also shown a certain amount of inconsistency. It opposes the Government's decision to levy VAT on domestic fuel and power. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) quoted from its 1991 policy document entitled "Costing the Earth", in which it showed itself to be even more hypocritical than the Labour party. Page 31 of the Liberal party's 1992 general election manifesto made a commitment to introducing a Community-wide energy tax on all energy sources.
The Liberal Democrat party reaffirmed that commitment on page three of its Green Paper, "Taxing Pollution, Not People", which was published in September 1992 and stated that it supported
The European Community proposals for an energy/carbon tax and would press for its immediate implementation at a national level".
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey nodding in agreement with that statement.
That document accepted that such a tax would lead to increases of 58 per cent. in the price of coal, of 14 per cent. in the price of gas and of 13 per cent. in the price of domestic electricity. Page nine states that the proposals are
too timid rather than too radical".
The Liberal Democrat party's support for the EC carbon tax showed its uncritical enthusiasm for all things European. Will the Minister explain that inconsistent element in its policy which I do not understand?

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments in the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for curtailing his remarks.
I am as cynical about the Government's record on the environment as I am about their record on so many other matters. The two main themes at Rio were the developing countries and the global environment. We restated our commitment to the developing countries to reach the United Nations aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GDP, but the Goverment have cut our aid budget from 0·52 to 0·27 per cent. over the past 14 years. Recently, it has been revealed that aid of £254 million for the Pergau dam in Malaysia was partly used for arms. That was a corrupt, improper use of the aid budget. It makes one feel cynical about the Government's aid policy.
Often we hear the Government say one thing but do another. We have a carbon dioxide problem and too little forestation. A major effort should be made to tackle that. With the surplus in agricultural production under the set-aside policy, it is eminently sensible to increase forest cover. The Government have a target to double forest cover by 2050, yet we still face the possibility of privatisation and the danger that forests will be cut down to make a quick profit.
In the documents, the Government talk about promoting the use of public transport, but what have they done? They have privatised the railways, which will hardly help. In the past year, the coal industry in particular has suffered from the dash for gas. I said earlier that I liked the Secretary of State's redefinition of sustainable development—that it would not cheat our children. What else are we doing with the exploitation of North sea oil and gas?
The dash for gas could have been halted and slowed down by imposing combined heat and power regulations on new gas power stations and by insisting that they use their energy efficiently. That would have transformed electricity generation over a 10-year period, with power generated at 80 per cent. efficiency instead of the present 40 per cent. The national rivers survey by the National Rivers Authority in 1990 showed for the first time ever that there has been a net deterioration in the quality of British rivers. What do the Government do? They cut the NRA's budget by 30 per cent. over three years. In a recent European summit, the Government backtracked on EC water quality directives.
Deregulation is threatening environmental protection, and we are still waiting for the environmental protection agency which was promised four or five years ago by the Government. All that we have been promised for this Session is a paving Bill. I feel let down, as do the people of this country, by the Government's record. It is short-sighted in terms of the environmental technology industry and it puts us at the back of a queue behind Japan, Germany and the United States in that tremendous growth market.
I finish by referring to a recent newspaper article by Professor David Pearce, a professor of economics at London university. He said that there was little in the policy papers to suggest that the Government understand the meaning or implications of sustainable development. That comes from an insider who knows more about the Government's policy than any hon. Member in the House this evening. It is sad. The debate concerns taking Rio forward, but I am afraid that the Government just do not have the political commitment to what was discussed in Rio.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you hear a point or order from me at 10 o'clock to save

time? The point of order will concern the fact that there are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were trying to be called.

Madam Speaker: I will hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order now.

Mr. Dalyell: I make no complaint about those hon. Members who were called. Could it be registered that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. Members would have liked to take part in the debate? Those hon. Members will take it ill to be berated by sections of the press and to be told that there is no interest in Rio and in the environment—far from it.

Madam Speaker: There is a great deal of interest in the matter. Between them, the two Front Benches will, by 10 o'clock, have taken one hour and 40 minutes in a short debate. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that two orders were quite properly divided on. Those took 25 minutes, during which time other hon. Members could have been called.

Mr. George Howarth: It is only fair to point out that the Secretary of State took 52 of those minutes on his own account. The right hon. Gentleman's responses to interventions were often somewhat longer than the interventions.
This has been a good debate, and it is unfortunate that more of my hon. Friends were unable to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, because of the time restraints. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of remarks made by hon. Members. It was significant that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who is respected on both sides of the House for his views on the matter, could not manage to get through his speech without making some minor criticisms of the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a good critique of the documents and of their effectiveness or otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) as usual made a knowledgeable speech, and brought the benefit of his great expertise on the subject to the House.
The Secretary of State made great play in his opening speech of a piece of work by Gerard Manley Hopkins. I thought that it would be appropriate to look for a response in the form of poetry. [Interruption.] The Minister now may be reticent to get involved in this literary side of the debate. I thought that the words of Wordsworth might be appropriate:
Blest statesman he, whose mind's unselfish will leaves him at ease among grand thoughts.
The issue at stake during this taking Rio forward debate is whether the Secretary of State has dealt with the grand issues, and, indeed, how at ease he is with them. That seems to be the crucial test.
The Secretary of State made a few interesting points tonight. Over the past few months, I have studied him and I accept that he has a genuine set of green intentions. He feels strongly about some issues, about which he sometimes rants in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Perish the thought that the Secretary of State should ever rant. There appears to be a black hole, however, between what the right hon. Gentleman believes he is doing and what the proposals in the Government's documents are likely to


achieve. A good example of that, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is the link between green issues and environmental policy and economic growth and economic policy in general. That is at the core of sustainable development.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the global market in environmental technologies is worth $300 billion according to the OECD and $600 billion according to other estimates. Either way, it is a massive market, far bigger than the global market for the aerospace industry. I hope that we can agree that that is the case.
We need a sound domestic base on which to develop that market, especially if we are to maximise the export potential that is offered. A survey of 300 United Kingdom businesses, recently carried out by environmental consultants, revealed that, although the global market is growing exponentially, Britain is at the bottom of the league. According to a study conducted by the German Government, Germany has 21 per cent. of the market, while the United States and Japan have taken, respectively, 16 and 13 per cent. of it. The United Kingdom's share is so low, unfortunately, that it does not even figure in the survey. Those consultants concluded:
The British technology industry is not a world player.
The Government's obsession with privatisation is also threatening the future of our forests. I hope that the Minister will take the initiative tonight, because it is about time that the Government said that they would not pursue that privatisation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can offer hon. Members that assurance.
I have the honour to represent part of the north-west, but I regret to say that 67 per cent. of the bathing beaches in that region have failed the bathing water directive. The Wirral, on Merseyside, has some of the best beaches, but some are not even recommended for people to use. At the same time as the statistics are published, the Minister dodges his way around Europe trying to get Britain out of that directive. If people use our beaches at all, they are forced to stand alongside raw sewage, sanitary products and other equally appalling objects.
The recent accident at Ellesmere Port reveals that the petro-chemical industry is not safe and has a huge potential for inflicting environmental damage. I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for a public inquiry into that accident. It is time that we learnt from such disasters about how mistakes are made. We should try to learn how to avoid similar environmental damage in the future.
On all those issues, the Government behave dirty at home, while their record abroad is one of missed opportunities to lead. The British people have lost confidence in the Government's environmental policy, as they have in so many of their other policies. The time is coming when the Government will no longer be trusted to protect our environment, because they are obviously failing to do so now.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have been fascinated by this debate. In a former incarnation, I was responsible for matters in Northern Ireland and I was immensely

impressed by the quality of the briefing that I received from officials in my Department, as well as by my Secretary of State and other Ministers who have told me about the success story of this country's environmental policy.
I was particularly fascinated by a survey carried out on people's attitudes to environmental problems. It showed that although 85 to 90 per cent. of those canvassed were concerned about matters relating to the ozone layer, greenhouse gases, and so on, the same percentage were entirely opposed to actions to remedy those problems if they involved cost.
We are arguing about a climate of change in public opinion, which means that we must get it across to people that dealing with those concerns will cost money or affect individuals' way of life. Unless we create that climate of change, we shall be unable to fulfil the requirements and targets set out in these immensely important documents.
In Northern Ireland, I was Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment. Those two Departments were indivisible. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that this area of environmental activity is an opportunity, not a burden. I could not agree with him more. As a result of my experience in Northern Ireland, we produced a document called "Growing a Green Economy", which dealt with economic growth and environmental protection. That is why I was refreshed and heartened to realise, on taking this new job, that we were trying to do the same thing here.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I do not have time.
Our task concerns those in industry and business as much as environmentalists. We must encourage each side of the argument—if argument there be—to recognise the virtues on both sides.
As Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) spoke with great authority on, and interest, in environmental matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made a brief intervention in his speech. I recognise that some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West were critical in detail. It is right and proper that, on such a wide subject, we should consider a number of activities and we recognise that, whereas the Government are achieving more than many of our contemporaries in other countries, we have some way to go in other areas.
I do not accept, however, the attack by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on the Government's transport and roads policy, for example, which he made with great venom, albeit with a twinkle in his eye. None the less, it is a serious point. Labour-controlled Lancashire county council in my constituency is determined to push a motorway through rural areas, affecting rural habitats and parts of my constituency and others. Like the Liberal party, the Labour party says one thing at national level but does another locally. Such action is not untypical of Lancashire council and many other Labour-controlled authorities.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not have time. I am not referring to his party, but if he wants to take up the matter, he will have an opportunity to do so later.
Leaflets have been posted in my constituency and those of some of my hon. Friends saying that the Liberal party is against VAT on fuel. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, what the Liberal and Labour parties say in the House is contrary to the policies declared by their spokesmen.
The Government, led by the Prime Minister and supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, have taken action to produce documents that have fulfilled a commitment to spell out what was required and what the future holds. We must make it clear that that will bring burdens to bear. The Opposition have not been prepared to do that.
Soon after arriving at the Department, I learnt about the packaging initiative, to which my right hon. Friend referred. It is immensely impressive, and it will be extremely important in getting the industry to realise what needs to be done and in encouraging people in the industry to recognise the lead taken by the group of 28. Today, in another part of Britain—Derbyshire—I launched The Countryside Means Business, which profiles 12 small companies reflecting the sustainable development message and encouraging economic activity in rural areas—activity which is also environmentally sensitive.
This week, the United Kingdom ratifies the Basle convention on the control of the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The United Kingdom will become a party to the convention in May, and on 1 May the new waste licensing regulations come into force.
Tomorrow marks the first of a series of 10 road shows on the theme of climate change: the challenge and the opportunities. Next week is energy advice week; the following week the Government publish their response to the Select Committee report on energy efficiency in buildings. The Helping the Earth campaign is to be extended for another two years. Here, indeed, is evidence of activity and of a commitment to the targets set. by my right hon. Friend and by the Government throughout the length and breadth of this country. We, therefore, have nothing to be ashamed of.
There is certainly more work to be done, and we must keep at it. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) mentioned bathing beaches, a subject which I, as a fellow north-west Member, understand well. The sewage outfalls of this country have needed attention for many years, but not much attention has been given them—although hon. Members may have mentioned them from time to time. As a result of the bathing water directive and of the Government's commitment, about ·2 billion is being spent on the problem. Compliance has risen from 56 to 80 per cent. of beaches, and by 1995 the vast majority will meet the mandatory standards of the directive. It is simply not true to say that my right hon. Friend has been going around Europe trying to stop the bathing water directive. We need to nail that canard here and now.
It is worth adding that a four-year study by the universities of Wales and of Surrey showed that more fuss is made about this matter than it merits. As I have said, ·2 billion is being spent to bring our beaches up to the standards that we want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to a number of points that interested me. I was particularly taken by the idea of the surveys of energy efficiency done before people buy houses. I was associated with that good idea on my first engagement in this job. I am interested to learn that at least one building society has taken it up. Clearly, it would have an effect on owners if, before they bought a house, such a survey were part of the deal. Any encouragement of the practice is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point asked one or two questions about Labour and Liberal policy. It is not for me to answer those questions—

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): It would not take long.

Mr. Atkins: Indeed not. In our documents, we have set out targets which constitute a challenge to the public, and we have set out ways and means by which round table advice from the great and the good—they understand these matters; they can criticise and advise us on what we need to do—can be elicited. That shows that we recognise that more needs to be done. We recognise that independent, impartial, outside advice can tell us where we need to be moving, to build on our energy efficiency campaign, and so on. We have increased expenditure on that campaign by up to 50 per cent. this year, and the budget for energy efficiency stands at about £100 million. Home energy efficiency scheme expenditure has doubled, and will be about £75 million in 1994–95. All this is more evidence of our commitment and of the tremendous lead given by my right hon. Friend during his tenure of office.
Let me remind the House that we are talking about sustainable development and a strategy to meet it. The strategy builds on the 1990 environment White Paper, which sets out principles of sustainable development and looks ahead 20 years to 2012 to identify the problems and opportunities that we must all work on. It studies processes and the way in which we can achieve sustainable development and who can do what—whether the Government, local authorities, businesses, industry, voluntary bodies or whoever. It also sets out three new Government measures: an independent panel, a national round table and a citizens environment initiative.
As I listened to Opposition Members, it became increasingly clear that the Opposition parties are presenting a fraudulent prospectus—saying what they want in general, but being coy about, or denying, the specifics. They never accept that there is a cost and they pretend that it can all be done without upsetting the voters.
There is a cost and the public deserve—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a complaint about the fact that neither I nor my lion. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) have been called, but concerns the way in which Parliament operates. You will recollect that on a Monday—after a Banqueting house press conference had taken place in the morning—I raised a point of order, which you most courteously heard, about whether it was proper that a press conference should take place with a great fanfare but that there should be no statement in the House of Commons. I subsequently raised the matter on the Floor of the House and my hon. Friend


the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) supported me from the Opposition Front Bench. He agreed with my point of view and, Madam Speaker, you gave a very sympathetic response on that occasion.
Since I saw the Leader of the House about the matter he has written to me saying that I had no reason to complain because there would be a debate, which he implied was better than a statement by the Secretary of State. However, tonight we have seen exactly what happens in a debate, and that it is not a substitute for a ministerial statement.
Therefore, if on future occasions any Government should spend all that money—I gather that it was a heck of a lot—

Mr. Simon Hughes: It was £20,000.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. If any Government spend £20,000 on making a statement at the Banqueting house, we should at least have a statement in this House. Tonight's debate has proved that there is no substitute for such a statement, when a Minister can be questioned—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There are no points of order arising from that matter. I dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about 20 minutes ago. I understand exactly what he is talking about; however, it is not a point of order for me but a matter of business. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may wish to raise it during business questions on Thursday.
The debate has been very short and I have enormous sympathy with Back-Bench Members who have been sitting here for the past two or three hours waiting to speak, while Front-Bench Members took about one hour and 40 minutes between them and other Back Benchers also took a considerable time. On such occasions—when several other Back Benchers have a contribution to make—there ought to be a little more understanding and hon. Members' speeches should be more brisk. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is, therefore, a matter for business questions, but I think that I have made my views very clear. I am very disappointed for those Back Benchers who have been sitting in the Chamber for some time and have not been able to speak in the debate.

Cruelty to Greyhounds

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to have this opportunity to mention the problem of cruelty to greyhounds so soon after the BBC's "On the Line" programme on the subject. That documentary brought the issue to my attention and there has subsequently been much comment in the press—especially the sporting press—and a great deal of supplementary information and evidence has been sent to me, and no doubt to other hon. Members.
I shall make a special mention of Mrs. Anne Shannon of the Isle of Man, who runs the Homesafe Greyhound Rescue outfit, and of Mr. Paddy Sweeney, a prominent veterinary surgeon who is also the father of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). The hon. Gentleman has kindly passed information from his father to me.
It is not my intention this evening to criticise greyhound racing as a sport—the second largest spectator sport in the United Kingdom and a very important industry—but I intend to criticise some of the priorities within the sport.
At the most public end of greyhound racing is a vastly profitable public entertainment colossus. I am told that £2 billion a year is gambled on dogs, £14 million is spent on upgrading Hackney stadium, including, I believe, £10 million investment by Saudi Arabia. The cloth cap and half-crown bet image of dog racing has given way to a much more wealthy and upmarket image, with excellent restaurants, bars and relatively luxurious accommodation. It is a multi-million pound entertainment industry at that end.
At the other end are the charities and the volunteers struggling to rescue as many as 30,000 dogs a year, who are either retired from racing or never make the grade. The Retired Greyhound Trust can rescue some 600 dogs a year. One wonders what happens to the other 29,400. The chief trading axis in greyhounds that concerns us is Ireland, the United Kingdom and Spain. More than 25,000 dogs are registered in Ireland every year; 9,000 are exported to the United Kingdom, which totals around 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom runners.
The United Kingdom accounts for 80 per cent. of Irish exports, so conditions and attitudes in Ireland are of direct concern to the authorities and the Government in this country. Some 50 per cent. of Irish greyhound puppies make the grade. Therefore, 50 per cent. do not. One wonders what happens to them. In my view, there is massive over-breeding of greyhounds in Ireland, which is encouraged by an EC grant of some £1 million a year.
The purpose of my speech is to highlight a variety of abuses to which greyhounds are subjected, which were made clear by the television programme and by publicity in the Sunday People and other newspapers around the same time. First, there is the trade in selling greyhounds for use in Spain, for all sorts of purposes—such as inferior meetings or, at worst, to be killed. One hears about them being ground down for dog food, used for vivisection and so on.
In the television documentary, a Mr. John Shields was shown buying dogs in Ireland and transporting them to Spain. Some evidence shows that he transports dogs to


Spain not only directly but in a transit van that travels through this country—some 36 dogs at a time, in cages less than 14 in wide. Some of the dogs that are transported to Spain are British-bred; most are not.
Mr. Shields said that he has sold thousands of dogs to Spain, over a period, and that it is not against the law. That is true. It is against National Greyhound Racing Club rules. I believe its integrity and sincerity in trying to maintain those rules, but it is not against the law. Therefore, there is no means of stopping Mr. Shields or others who want to take part in that trade.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as well as its being against NGRC rules to sell greyhounds to Spain, it is against its rules to allow dogs to go to Spain to be used in other activities such as coursing and hunting, to be used on flapping tracks in the United Kingdom, or for them to be bloodied on live animals, including rabbits?
There is a price to pay. My hon. Friend may not be aware that anybody found practising any of those habits with greyhounds in Britian will be barred from participation in any NGRC track in the United Kingdom. That means that they cannot race on registered tracks, which form the majority of race tracks in this country.

Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend is an expert, and I take what he says seriously. I shall say more about NGRC sanctions later: on the basis of what my hon. Friend has said, some people who figured in the documentary should be barred from the sport forthwith.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: The mere fact that such practices may contravene NGRC rules does not make them illegal. Legislation is needed to make the rules stick.

Mr. Pickthall: I shall emphasise that point later.
I could describe conditions in Spain at length, but time forbids, the information is readily available and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has covered much of it. I can summarise the position by saying that many dogs end up in what approximate to concentration camps. The conditions they must survive have been described in lurid terms; one or two English veterinarians have done sterling work in Spain, trying to alleviate those conditions.
In 1992, the last year for which I have figures, some 55 dogs were subjected to vivisection or experimentation in the United Kingdom, although such action is against the spirit of the law—and against the law itself, as I understand it.

Mr. Meale: I have been told, in reply to my questions to the Home Office, that only 14 of those 55 dogs came from the United Kingdom. Having checked with the NGRC, I understand that, if any person involved in greyhound racing in this country were found to have provided dogs for experimentation, that person would be barred from participating in registered racing.
Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that, if greyhound racing were made illegal in this country—I hope that he does not suggest such a course—the door would be left wide open to another abhorrent practice? I refer to the coursing of live rabbits and hares, which, unfortunately, still takes place here. I hope to God that we do not allow

that to happen, rather than organising registered races with proper veterinary c are—which is available, under the guidance of the NGRC.

Mr. Pickthall: I do not remotely suggest that greyhound racing as a sport should be banned. I am simply saying that, if the Government and the industry do not take urgent and drastic action to stop the current abuses, a groundswell of opinion—led by various groups—will suggest just such action. The father of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan made that clear in the documentary.

Mr. Meale: I do not mean to keep interrupting my hon. Friend; I promise him that I shall not do so again. However, he has quoted Mr. Paddy Sweeney a number of times. Mr. Sweeney, unfortunately, must be cited as a relative of an hon. Member who is present in the Chamber.
I have a letter from Mr. Sweeney, quoting a speech in which he said that it was the job of everyone connected with greyhounds
to work for the welfare of greyhounds and the development of coursing.
Just who are we talking about, and whose word are we taking?

Mr. Picktall: As my hon. Friend knows from my interest in abolishing hare coursing, I totally disagree with the latter part of that sentence.
I will touch briefly on the disposal of what might be termed redundant greyhounds. I am told that a greyhound costs around £2,000 a year to kennel and feed properly, and in the documentary that we all saw the Ulster RSPCA described various horrors. They may have been one-offs, but I suspect that they were not—instances of dogs clubbed to death, having their ears cut off, being dumped in the Foyle and injected with household bleach or other substances—anything to kill them, to avoid paying the £20 its costs to have a dog put down humanely, as if that were not bad enough.
A side issue, but none the less important, is the bailing and training of dogs using live rabbits. The film clearly showed Owen McKenna, the son of Joe McKenna, baiting dogs with live rabbits. Our interviewee said that dogs get bored with artificial bait—the conclusion being that they need live bait from time to time. That was particularly horrific—and if the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield are to be taken seriously, I presume that at least Owen McKenna will soon be banned by the NGRC from participating in the sport.
There are two aspects to the drugs question. One is the ready availability to the training industry of black market drugs such as cortisones, amphetamines and anabolics. The documentary showed them to be available at least from a man called Alan Bennett in Yorkshire—not, I hope, the Alan Bennett that we all know and love. He was saying over the telephone that, if those drugs were used, the dogs would be—forgive the language, Madam Speaker—buggered afterwards. In other words, the second problem is the use of drugs to allow injured dogs to run. That may be okay in the short term, but in the longer term it harms dogs and perhaps even finishes them off.
The veterinary surgeon to whom several references have been made graphically illustrated, as he has done in writing, the effect of track racing on the four legs and feet of dogs. Again, that problem is sometimes covered up by drug misuse.
I hope that the Government will consider a number of matters, and that the Minister will comment on them tonight. The Select Committee on Home Affairs should reopen its 1991 investigation, which imposed severe strictures that were not followed up. The Government should at least query EC subsidies or overbreeding in Ireland.
The Government should also be involved in talks with their Irish and Spanish counterparts, to agree a joint approach to greyhound welfare and to prevent the export and import of animals other than as runners at proper tracks. I believe that the Irish Government's Agriculture Minister is still Brian O'Shea. So far, he has not been very helpful, although the board has been positive.
The Home Office should tighten up on the exemptions that allow ex-racing greyhounds to be purchased by laboratories where there are no suitable purpose-bred animals. The NGRC will ban for life owners who sell greyhounds that way. The Government should discuss—this is important to the NGRC and to everyone else involved in the sport—the possibility of imposing something like a levy at track level to provide properly for retired greyhounds. I hope that the industry will take that on board. There is surely enough money at the top of the industry to do something effective about it.
The Government should take action against the wrongful sale and use of drugs to enable sick or injured dogs to run. They should insist on enhanced veterinary examination before racing. Again, those guilty of the abuse of drugs should be banned from involvement in the sport.
Exports of greyhounds should be controlled by law. That has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, and by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan. The NGRC takes action against people involved in the sport in Britain, but it cannot invoke the law to stop the trade. That is a matter for the Government.
Lastly, men such as Owen McKenna and others who use live animals to blood greyhounds should be banned by the NGRC from any involvement in racing. The Government should seriously consider whether such people are breaking the law.
It is an irony for me to be raising the subject of greyhound racing. I do not claim to be a dog lover, but I am revolted by the cruelty at the margins of the sport in Britain, and perhaps more than at the margins in other countries. It is no answer to say that most of the cruelty happens in Ireland or Spain. In the European Union we are intimately bound together in the trade that takes place. What happens in the ghastly Spanish concentration camps, where at least some, however few, of the dogs are from the United Kingdom, is our concern, just as it is the concern of the international community.
If the NGRC and the Government in co-operation do not do something about cruelty to greyhounds, Britain will see a sustained campaign against cruelty in sport. That could damage a perfectly legitimate sport, which I would not want to see damaged or become the subject of the attention of, for example, the League Against Cruel Sports.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on

his success in obtaining this debate. His concern about the use of animals in sport is well known. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke with authority about NGRC rules. His knowledge in that matter is also well known. I noted the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).
As my time is limited, I shall press on. As the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said, his debate has been prompted by a recent television programme in which allegations were made about cruelties in the sport of greyhound racing. The programme referred to practices, as the hon. Gentleman described, such as the feeding of dogs with live rabbits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of drugs to enable injured dogs to run when they should not and the disposal of dogs, when they no longer race, for use in experimentation.
Before dealing with the allegations, it might be helpful if I were to describe the current law against cruelty to animals, without giving a long and descriptive passage. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to ill-treat or cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal. Under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1988, the court may in addition deprive a person of ownership of an animal for such period as it thinks fit. Section 1 of the 1911 Act was amended by the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, which makes it an offence to abandon any animal—permanently or not—without reasonable cause or excuse in circumstances likely to cause the animal any unnecessary suffering.
Before I deal with the specific matters that the hon. Gentleman raised about the treatment of greyhounds in racing, I should make it clear that the Government are not responsible for greyhound racing as a sport, as the hon. Member for Mansfield reminded us in his recitation of some of the rules. We have two interests: we are responsible for controls on betting and we are responsible for the statutory framework governing the prevention of cruelty to animals to which I have just alluded.
In relation to the first, our concern is—

Mr. Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wardle: I am sorry, I must press on. If there is time later, I will give way. The time was over-run, quite understandably. Our concern is to maintain the integrity of betting as it takes place on greyhound racing and to see that the punter is treated fairly.
Turning to the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West about the treatment of greyhounds in racing, obviously we must all be concerned if any of the allegations that have been made are true of racing in Britain. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about other countries in the European Union and I understand his feelings, but he will also appreciate that I speak at the Dispatch Box for controls in this country. No doubt what he has said about conditions in other countries will be noted.
We have been in touch with the British Greyhound Racing Board, which says that the practices depicted on television are not tolerated in regulated greyhound racing in this country. I understand it to be its belief that a considerable amount of the footage shown in the television programme was filmed outside the United Kingdom and that most of the allegations involved practices taking place abroad.
The NGRC has said that there is no place in greyhound racing for anyone involved in cruel practices. It takes a most serious view of the matter and has made it clear that it does not accept cruelty to animals in the training and preparation of racing greyhounds. I understand that NGRC rules forbid the practice of using rabbits to train greyhounds and any trainers found using live bait to train a greyhound will have their licences withdrawn and not be allowed to train greyhounds for NGRC racing. I see that the hon. Member for Mansfield is nodding in agreement. The NGRC also says that it has a clear line in respect of greyhounds racing while injured. It requires a vet to be in attendance at each race meeting and all greyhounds to be inspected twice before racing. I am assured that the rules are very strictly applied.
Many people are naturally concerned to know what happens to retired greyhounds when their racing life is over. The NGRC cannot speak for independent tracks, which are not under their jurisdiction, but under its rules, the welfare of greyhounds is most important. The NGRC says that its main approach is that owners must be registered with the NGRC and can lose their licence if dogs are ill-treated. Of the £20 registration fee, £5 goes to the NGRC's Retired Greyhound Trust, whose function is to act as a fallback to help owners who cannot meet their responsibility towards the greyhounds in their care by placing dogs in homes.
The subject was touched on by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which examined the financing of racing in 1991. It recommended that track owners and bookmakers should donate part of their profits to the retired greyhound trust. The Government's response was that the welfare of greyhounds during and after their racing career was the responsibility of the owners. Nevertheless, any support that those involved in the conduct of greyhound racing, or in betting on it, could give would also be welcome.
The Government have played their part in channelling funds towards the sport. The 1992 Budget resulted in a 0·25 per cent. reduction in betting duty. When making the announcement at the time, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hoped that the bookmakers would channel the portion relating to bets on greyhound racing to a voluntary fund. The two industries have set up the British greyhound racing fund under an independent chairman, Lord Kimball. The fund has benefited integrity services at tracks. In addition, £59,000 was donated in 1993 towards the work of the Retired Greyhound Trust.
It is understood that the track owners are also considering what more might be done to promote the home-finding schemes at their own tracks. It is the industry's intention to give fresh impetus to the work of the trust and in particular to concentrate on expanding and properly financing local home-finding schemes. In addition, it is estimated that 3,000 retired dogs are being kept in kennels by trainers throughout the country.
Whether the industry should be doing more to put money towards the provision of homes must be a matter for it. But I know that the industry is considering those questions most carefully in response to the concerns that have been expressed. I know that there is particular concern about the fate of dogs that are exported—as has been mentioned. The Government have no power to prevent the export of animals to other European Union countries and what goes on in those countries is a matter for them. However, I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West will have been noted. I

understand that the NGRC has banned its members from exporting dogs to Spain. Where a dog goes after its racing career has to be the responsibility of the owner.
There have, I know, been suggestions that ex-racing greyhounds may have been used in scientific research. 'The 1986 legislation contains special provisions in respect of laboratory dogs and cats, which must be bred at, and obtained from, a designated breeding establishment. 'The only exception to that is where the Secretary of State is satisfied that animals suitable for the purpose of the programme cannot be so obtained and where there is a clear scientific case for using a non-designated source of supply. That provision is designed as reassurance that stray or stolen dogs will not be used in experiments.
There is now no designated source of supply for greyhounds. For a short period in 1991–92, there was a designated breeder of greyhounds for research purposes. When authority is given by the Home Secretary to acquire greyhounds from non-designated sources, a condition is added to the relevant project licence prohibiting the acquisition of animals from charities seeking homes for ex-racing greyhounds.
The demand for greyhounds for scientific use is very small and appears to be diminishing still further. It is likely that there will always be a residual demand for such animals for very scientific inquiries. For example, studies of the metabolism of drugs in trained, race-fit animals cannot be carried out in animals other than trained, race-fit animals. Therefore, if the scientific question is to be addressed properly, a means of acquiring such animals must be provided.
On the question of abuse of animals at independent tracks, it is already open to any person who believes that a dog has been caused unnecessary suffering in any circumstances to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, or to report the matter to the police.
As I seem to have made up a minute or so on time, does my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan wish to intervene?

Mr. Sweeney: Given the high incidence of injuries to greyhounds at United Kingdom dog tracks, will my hon. Friend consider introducing controls over the NGRC and other track operators to ensure that tracks are independently inspected so that racing can be stopped if the going is too hard and so that veterinary examinations are conducted by independent vets rather than those employed by dog tracks?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier comments' and his remarks will have been noted by the House. As I said, it is a matter for the NGRC. The Government do not propose to introduce legislation that would, in effect, tell the NGRC what to do. It sets its rules, which it expects to be followed. If they are not, the penalties have been made clear to its members. Two inspections are conducted by a vet at each meeting and I see no reason to doubt their integrity. My hon. Friend's comments will have been noted.
We all want to see humane treatment of the animals on which the sport depends. The Government have given full support to legislation to strengthen the Protection of Animals Act 1911. We have supported measures for increased penalties and stronger powers for the courts to disqualify offenders from having custody of any animal.
The sport must be ever-vigilant to protect its good name and I commend the hon. Member for Lancashire, West for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. The industry must face the concerns that have been expressed

head on and must deal with them. We shall be in touch with the sport's ruling body to report what has been said in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.